Australian police have charged a man with a series of sex offences in a case which has drawn comparisons to that of Austrian Josef Fritzl.
Australian media said the man, in his 60s, had been charged with rape and incest allegedly committed against his daughter over a period of 30 years.
Prosecutors will allege DNA tests prove the man is the father of his daughter's four children, reports say.
Fritzl was convicted of raping and imprisoning his daughter for 24 years.
Police in Victoria state, where the man was arrested in February, would not give any further details because of a court suppression order.
Australia's ABC News said the man, who has not been named, has been charged with five counts of rape, five of incest, two of indecent assault and one count of common assault.
The trial will start in November, ABC said.
Birth certificates
Other reports say the man was arrested in February after his daughter spoke to police last year. The police then apparently began their investigations, including the DNA tests.
He is reported to have lived in the Latrobe Valley, east of Melbourne, with his wife, daughter and her children.
The Herald Sun newspaper said all four children had been born in Melbourne hospitals with health problems. One died soon after birth. None of the children had a father listed on their birth certificates, the newspaper said.
The allegations have shocked Australians, coming a day after a report highlighted failings in Victoria's child protection services.
Victoria's Premier John Brumby said he could not comment of the specifics of the case because the suspect was in custody awaiting trial.
"I think it's very important that nothing is said that might prejudice judicial proceedings.
"Any crime of this type is one that is shocking and is personally repulsive to me and other Victorians, and any crime that did occur in our state of this type would be met with the full force of the law," he said.
Government inquiry
His government has ordered an urgent investigation into how much authorities knew of the man before he was arrested.
"I don't know what, or if any, involvement the police, the department [of human services] or other agencies have [had] over the last 30 years," said Victoria's Community Services Minister Lisa Neville.
Austrian Josef Fritzl was convicted in March of imprisoning his daughter for 24 years, repeatedly raping her and fathering seven children with her.
In California, a couple have been charged with kidnapping an 11-year-old and holding her for 18 years while the man had two children with her.
WARSAW (Reuters) – Poland on Friday approved a law making chemical castration mandatory for pedophiles in some cases, sparking criticism from human rights groups.
Under the law, sponsored by Poland's center-right government, pedophiles convicted of raping children under the age of 15 years or a close relative would have to undergo chemical therapy on their release from prison.
"The purpose of this action is to improve the mental health of the convict, to lower his libido and thereby to reduce the risk of another crime being committed by the same person," the government said in a statement.
Prime Minister Donald Tusk said late last year he wanted obligatory castration for pedophiles, whom he branded 'degenerates'. Tusk said he did not believe "one can use the term 'human' for such individuals, such creatures."
"Therefore I don't think protection of human rights should refer to these kind of events," Tusk also said.
His remarks drew criticism from human rights groups but he never retracted them.
"Introducing any mandatory treatment raises doubts as such a requirement is never reasonable and life can always produce cases that lawmakers could never have even dreamt of," said Piotr Kladoczny from the Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights.
"If somebody is of sound mind, we punish him. If he is sick, we try to cure him -- that's how it works in Polish law. This bill introduces both approaches. As far as I know, this makes our law the strictest in Europe on this issue," Kladoczny said.
The bill, which also increases prison sentences for rape and incest, must still be approved by the upper chamber of parliament. This is seen as a formality as Tusk's Civic Platform party holds a majority of its 100 seats.
(Reporting by Gabriela Baczynska; Editing by Louise Ireland)
I am very hesitant to increase penalties on sex offenders, mostly because sex offenders tend to have a stigma around them for the rest of their lives. Furthermore, within the political realm, promising to crack down on crime and sex crimes has a ratchet effect; each successive politician needs to promise stricter laws and punishments on offenders or else risk appearing soft. No politicians wants to be labeled soft on rapists.
There are crimes that are detestable, yes, but in America the term "sex offender" is thrown around with way too little regard for the crime itself. What if you are 18 and have sex with a 15 year old? What if you thought she was 18? What if she even tricked you with a fake ID? What if it was consensual? What if it was just a one time mistake? These are all common defenses, and while sometimes legitimate, unfortunately fall through the cracks way too often, and innocent people who made simple mistakes can no longer have a normal life.
There was a great article in the Economist about this a few months ago. There was a father who, when he was in high school, had a consensual sexual relationship at 18 with a 16 year old girl. He got busted and had to register as a sex offender. Despite the fact that he actually got married to the girl in question later in life, because he is a registered offender he cannot live near schools, so his children have to travel far to get to school every day. He is not legally allowed to take his children to the park, he could go to jail for it. This is all because of something he did with someone 20 years ago whom he eventually married anyway. Is that right? There are plenty of people in cases like this from laws intended for sexual predators that have spiraled out of control.
For the sake of argument, let's say that this law is only intended for the worst of the worst, the Josef Fritzls of the world. That is fine at first. But remember what I said about the ratchet effect. Incoming politicians, wanting to seem tough on crime (who doesn't want stricter laws and punishments for Josef Fritzls?) will strengthen these laws and make them encompass more people. It is only a matter of time before someone who is leagues away from the type of people this law was originally intended for will be punished in the same way.
No politician has the balls to stand up against the ignorance and stupidity of the public and take a stand against what has gone too far. At the very least the person I mentioned could EVENTUALLY have his name removed from the list. It's not likely, but it's technically possible. Chemically neutering someone is a one time deal. There's no coming back from that.
I think the sex offender registry is worse than castration. For the exact types of cases you mentioned. Registration should not be mandatory. It should be on a case by case basis. At the very least, let the judge decide if the individual is a likely danger to society and should be registered. The whole point is so the public can be aware of a potential danger.
Here's the article from the Economist, Aug. 6 2009. It's a long one, so I highlighted the important parts for those who don't want to read it all.
America's unjust sex laws: An ever harsher approach is doing more harm than good, but it is being copied around the world
IT IS an oft-told story, but it does not get any less horrific on repetition. Fifteen years ago, a paedophile enticed seven-year-old Megan Kanka into his home in New Jersey by offering to show her a puppy. He then raped her, killed her and dumped her body in a nearby park. The murderer, who had recently moved into the house across the street from his victim, had twice before been convicted of sexually assaulting a child. Yet Megan’s parents had no idea of this. Had they known he was a sex offender, they would have told their daughter to stay away from him.
In their grief, the parents started a petition, demanding that families should be told if a sexual predator moves nearby. Hundreds of thousands signed it. In no time at all, lawmakers in New Jersey granted their wish. And before long, “Megan’s laws” had spread to every American state.
America’s sex-offender laws are the strictest of any rich democracy. Convicted rapists and child-molesters are given long prison sentences. When released, they are put on sex-offender registries. In most states this means that their names, photographs and addresses are published online, so that fearful parents can check whether a child-molester lives nearby. Under the Adam Walsh Act of 2006, another law named after a murdered child, all states will soon be obliged to make their sex-offender registries public. Such rules are extremely popular. Most parents will support any law that promises to keep their children safe. Other countries are following America’s example, either importing Megan’s laws or increasing penalties: after two little girls were murdered by a school caretaker, Britain has imposed multiple conditions on who can visit schools.
Which makes it all the more important to ask whether America’s approach is the right one. In fact its sex-offender laws have grown self-defeatingly harsh (see article). They have been driven by a ratchet effect. Individual American politicians have great latitude to propose new laws. Stricter curbs on paedophiles win votes. And to sound severe, such curbs must be stronger than the laws in place, which in turn were proposed by politicians who wished to appear tough themselves. Few politicians dare to vote against such laws, because if they do, the attack ads practically write themselves.
A whole Wyoming of offenders
In all, 674,000 Americans are on sex-offender registries—more than the population of Vermont, North Dakota or Wyoming. The number keeps growing partly because in several states registration is for life and partly because registries are not confined to the sort of murderer who ensnared Megan Kanka. According to Human Rights Watch, at least five states require registration for people who visit prostitutes, 29 require it for consensual sex between young teenagers and 32 require it for indecent exposure. Some prosecutors are now stretching the definition of “distributing child pornography” to include teens who text half-naked photos of themselves to their friends.
How dangerous are the people on the registries? A state review of one sample in Georgia found that two-thirds of them posed little risk. For example, Janet Allison was found guilty of being “party to the crime of child molestation” because she let her 15-year-old daughter have sex with a boyfriend. The young couple later married. But Ms Allison will spend the rest of her life publicly branded as a sex offender.
Several other countries have sex-offender registries, but these are typically held by the police and are hard to view. In America it takes only seconds to find out about a sex offender: some states have a “click to print” icon on their websites so that concerned citizens can put up posters with the offender’s mugshot on trees near his home. Small wonder most sex offenders report being harassed. A few have been murdered. Many are fired because someone at work has Googled them.
Registration is often just the start. Sometimes sex offenders are barred from living near places where children congregate. In Georgia no sex offender may live or work within 1,000 feet (300 metres) of a school, church, park, skating rink or swimming pool. In Miami an exclusion zone of 2,500 feet has helped create a camp of homeless offenders under a bridge.
Make the punishment fit the crime
There are three main arguments for reform. First, it is unfair to impose harsh penalties for small offences. Perhaps a third of American teenagers have sex before they are legally allowed to, and a staggering number have shared revealing photographs with each other. This is unwise, but hardly a reason for the law to ruin their lives. Second, America’s sex laws often punish not only the offender, but also his family. If a man who once slept with his 15-year-old girlfriend is barred for ever from taking his own children to a playground, those children suffer.
Third, harsh laws often do little to protect the innocent. The police complain that having so many petty sex offenders on registries makes it hard to keep track of the truly dangerous ones. Cash that might be spent on treating sex offenders—which sometimes works—is spent on huge indiscriminate registries. Public registers drive serious offenders underground, which makes them harder to track and more likely to reoffend. And registers give parents a false sense of security: most sex offenders are never even reported, let alone convicted.
It would not be hard to redesign America’s sex laws. Instead of lumping all sex offenders together on the same list for life, states should assess each person individually and include only real threats. Instead of posting everything on the internet, names could be held by the police, who would share them only with those, such as a school, who need to know. Laws that bar sex offenders from living in so many places should be repealed, because there is no evidence that they protect anyone: a predator can always travel. The money that a repeal saves could help pay for monitoring compulsive molesters more intrusively—through ankle bracelets and the like.
In America it may take years to unpick this. However practical and just the case for reform, it must overcome political cowardice, the tabloid media and parents’ understandable fears. Other countries, though, have no excuse for committing the same error. Sensible sex laws are better than vengeful ones.
--
The reason I post this is because I want people to think about the situation of sex predator laws in the US right now. It is stuck in a dangerous spiral of punishing more people for less and less serious crimes. I know that Rob's article is about Poland, but wouldn't you be afraid of chemical castration becoming more and more of a blanket treatment against criminals? What if Poland succumbs, or is already succumbing, to the same ratchet effect as in America? What if an American politician tries to introduce this law because it's already in effect in Poland?
Edit: There was a second article in the Economist about the actual effectiveness of these laws, along with more stories of people who have to pay for the rest of their lives for something they did once as kids.
WASHINGTON — President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” a stunning honor that came less than nine months after he made United States history by becoming the country’s first African-American president.
The award, announced in Oslo by the Nobel Committee while much of official Washington — including the president — was still asleep, cited in particular the president’s efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
“He has created a new international climate,” the committee said.
For Mr. Obama, one of the nation’s youngest presidents, the award is an extraordinary recognition that puts him in the company of world leaders such as Mikhail S. Gorbachev, who won for helping to bring an end to the cold war, and Nelson Mandela, who sought an end to apartheid. But it is also a potential political liability at home; already, Republicans are criticizing the president, contending he won more for his “star power” than his actual achievements.
Appearing in the Rose Garden, Mr. Obama said he was ‘’surprised and deeply humbled” by the committee’s decision, and quickly put to rest any speculation that he might not accept the honor. Describing the award as an “affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations,” he said he would accept it as “a call to action.”
“To be honest,” the president said “I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize, men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.”
The news shocked people in Oslo — where an audible gasp escaped the audience when the decision was announced — and in Washington, where top advisers to Mr. Obama said they had no idea it was coming. The president was awakened shortly before 6 a.m. by his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, who delivered the news.
“There has been no discussion, nothing at all,” said Rahm Emanuel, the president’s chief of staff, in a brief early morning telephone interview.
In one sense, the award was a rebuke to the foreign policies of Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, some of which the president has sought to overturn. Mr. Obama made repairing the fractured relations between the United States and the rest of the world a major theme of his campaign for the presidency. Since taking office as president he has pursued a range of policies intended to fulfill that goal. He has vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, as he did in a speech in Prague earlier this year; reached out to the Muslim world, delivering a major speech in Cairo in June; and sought to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” the committee said in its citation. “His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”
But while Mr. Obama has generated considerable good will overseas — his foreign counterparts are eager to meet with him, and polls show he is hugely popular around the world — many of his policy efforts have yet to bear fruit, or are only just beginning to do so. North Korea has defied him with missile tests; Iran, however, recently agreed to restart nuclear talks, which Mr. Obama has called “a constructive beginning.”
In that sense, Mr. Obama is unlike past recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize such as former President Jimmy Carter, who won in 2002 for what presenters cited as decades of “untiring efforts” to seek peaceful end to international conflicts. (Mr. Carter failed to win in 1978, as some had expected, after he brokered a historic peace deal between Israel and Egypt.)
Thorbjorn Jagland, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee and a former prime minister of Norway, said the president had already contributed enough to world diplomacy and international understanding to earn the award.
“We are not awarding the prize for what may happen in the future, but for what he has done in the previous year,” Mr. Jagland said. “We would hope this will enhance what he is trying to do.”
Reaction from around the world was mixed, with some leaders and analysts applauding the president’s peace initiatives and others saying the award seemed premature and based on good intentions rather than actual accomplishments.
The prize will be awarded in Oslo on Dec. 10, and the president is expected to attend the ceremony.
The honor comes as Mr. Obama faces considerable challenges at home. On the domestic front, he is trying to press Congress to pass major legislation overhauling the nation’s health care system. On the foreign policy front, he is wrestling with declining support in his own party for the war in Afghanistan. The White House is engaged in an internal debate over whether to send more troops there, as Mr. Obama’s commanding general has requested.
Even before Mr. Obama appeared in the Rose Garden to discuss the award, he was facing criticism from the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele.
“The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights,” Mr. Steele said in a statement. “One thing is certain — President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.”
Mr. Obama’s rival in last year’s presidential election, the Republican senator John McCain, said on CNN this morning: “I think part of their decision-making was expectations. And I’m sure the president understands that he now has even more to live up to.”
Mr. Obama suffered a rejection on the world stage only last Friday when he traveled to Copenhagen to press the United States’ unsuccessful bid to host the Olympics in Chicago. Mr. Emanuel, who heard the news at 5 a.m. when he was heading out for his morning swim, said he joked to his wife, “Oslo beats Copenhagen.”
But rebuffs have been rare for Mr. Obama as he has traveled the world these past nine months — from Africa to Europe, Latin America and the Middle East, with a trip to Asia planned for November.
In April, just hours after North Korea tested a ballistic missile in defiance of international sanctions, he told a huge crowd in Prague that he was committed to “a world without nuclear weapons.”
In June, he traveled to Cairo, fulfilling a campaign pledge to deliver a speech in a major Muslim capital. There, in a speech that was interrupted with shouts of, “We love you!” from the crowd, Mr. Obama said he sought a “new beginning” and a “fresh relationship” based on mutual understanding and respect.
Mr. Obama’s foreign policy has been criticized bitterly among neoconservatives like former Vice President Dick Cheney, who have suggested his rhetoric is naïve and his inclination to talk to America’s enemies will leave the United States vulnerable to another terrorist attack.
In its announcement of the prize, the Nobel Committee seemed to directly refute that line of thinking.
“Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics,” the committee wrote. “Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.”
Interviewed later in the Nobel Committee’s wood-paneled meeting room, surrounded by photographs of past winners, Mr. Jagland brushed aside concerns expressed by some critics that Mr. Obama remains untested.
“The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world,” Mr. Jagland said. “And who has done more than Barack Obama?”
He compared the selection of Mr. Obama with the award in 1971 to the then West German Chancellor Willy Brandt for his “Ostpolitik” policy of reconciliation with communist eastern Europe.
“Brandt hadn’t achieved much when he got the prize, but a process had started that ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall,” Mr. Jagland said. “We have to get the world on the right track again,” he said. Without referring specifically to the Bush era, he continued: “Look at the level of confrontation we had just a few years ago. Now we get a man who is not only willing but probably able to open dialogue and strengthen international institutions.”
President Obama is the third leading American Democrat to win the prize this decade, following former Vice President Al Gore in 2007 along with the United Nations climate panel and former President Jimmy Carter in 2002.
Mr. Obama is also the third sitting American president to win the prize; the others were Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 and Woodrow Wilson in 1919. Mr. Carter won more than 20 years after he left office.
As many movement conservatives enjoy expressing outrage more than they enjoy sex, eating or the company of friends and loved ones, and as the entire conservative media is devoted to expressing ever-escalating outrage and grievance in the face of this liberal-biased country– you know, the country where they controlled all three branches of government a couple years ago?– the Nobel committee’s silly, indefensible decision to give Barack Obama the Peace prize is a great boon to those self-same conservatives. Is it any different, though, for any of us? Roman Polanski, ACORN, Michael Jackson and McKenzie Phillips are largely meaningless distractions, as well. But then, that’s our culture. That’s MY culture. No one is above the outrage cycle. We have now, in our culture, synthesized the two worst elements of pre-9/11 and post-9/11 media: the pre-9/11 obsession with meaningless bullshit; and the post-9/11 obsession with filling every story with apocalyptic portent and over the top, tween-girl-at-a-Jonas-brothers-concert hysteria.
We still care too much about J-Lo’s dress and the Summer of the Shark. Now, we get around the idea that we are shallow for giving a shit about such things by infusing them with pseudo-political importance and our current national drug of choice, outrage. Everything is an outrage. Everyone is outraged. Every turn of the news cycle gives us a new opportunity to pound the table. Every item that crawls across the newsfeed at the bottom of our screens is an excuse to stab one’s finger into one’s chest and declaim, solemnly and with vast consequence, “I, for one, am sickened.” This is how a shallow culture convinces itself that it is deep. This is how a child’s culture convinces itself that it is adult. Every new twist requires the expression of acute emotional energy, and every expression reinforces that whatever we are, we are a deep, responsible people. 9/11 didn’t stop us from caring about the stupid nonsense. It didn’t turn our attention from little contrived controversies to major historical events. It just inspired us to elevate those contrived controversies to the level of history. The other two options were beyond the pale: give up on caring about bullshit, or admit that this is a shallow culture. Neither could be countenanced. Instead, we’ve chosen to live in a world where the next outrage is just moments away, and where the vast import of everything our minds light upon ensures that whatever else we are, we are all of us Very Important People.
Marge Simpson has done something that Homer might not approve of but will make Bart the proudest kid in his school: She’s posed for Playboy magazine.
After more than a half century featuring women like Marilyn Monroe, Cindy Crawford and the Girls of Hooters on its cover, Playboy has for the first time given the spot to a cartoon character.
And the magazine is giving the star of “The Simpsons” the star treatment, complete with a data sheet, an interview and a 2-page centerfold.
The magazine’s editorial director, James Jellinek, won’t say exactly how much of Marge will show in the November edition that hits newsstands on Oct. 16 — or whether she lets that big pile of blue hair down. But, he said, “It’s very, very racy.”
But he stressed that the mother of three — the youngest a baby, by the way — has a lot to be proud of.
“She is a stunning example of the cartoon form,” he said on Friday at the magazine’s headquarters in Chicago, appearing both pleased and surprised at the words coming out of his mouth.
For Playboy, which has seen its circulation slip from 3.15 million to 2.6 million since 2006, putting Marge on the cover was designed to attract younger readers to a magazine where the median age of readers is 35, while not alienating older readers.
“We knew that this would really appeal to the 20-something crowd,” said Playboy spokeswoman Theresa Hennessey.
The magazine also hopes to turn the November issue into a collectors’ item by featuring Marge, sitting on a chair in the shape of the iconic Playboy bunny, on the cover of only the magazines sold in newsstands. Subscribers get a more traditional model on the cover.
“It’s so rare in today’s digital age where you have the opportunity to send people to the newsstand to pick something up,” Jellinek said.
Playboy even convinced 7-Eleven to carry the magazine in its 1,200 corporate-owned stores, something the company has only done once before in more than 20 years.
“We love Marge,” said 7-Eleven spokesman Margaret Chabris.
For those who do collect the magazine — and they’re out there — the cover will bring to mind another first for the magazine that occurred in 1971 when a black woman appeared on the cover in exactly the same pose and, like Marge, smiling under an impressive head of hair.
“We knew it was something all of our readers would get a kick out of,” said Hennessey.
Jellinek said putting Marge on the cover, while unusual, made perfect sense. For one thing, the cover celebrates the 20th anniversary of the TV show. Further, he said there was an episode in which “Marge bears all,” which suggested the at she, or at least the people who drew her, would be comfortable with the Playboy treatment.
Perhaps most important, the idea seemed like a good one to the magazine’s founder, Hugh Hefner.
“He’s a huge ‘Simpsons’ fan,’ said Jellinek. “He’s been on ’The Simpsons.”’
This could be either effed up or somewhat amusing news, depending on your take. I could go either way, but this makes me feel a little weird, so I lean towards effed up.
(CBS) A 6-year-old boy's excitement over joining the Cub Scouts may just land him in reform school for 45 days.
Zachary Christie was suspended from his 1st grade class in Delaware's Christina School District after bringing a camping utensil - a combination knife/fork/spoon - to use at lunch, prompting calls to reexamine schools' zero-tolerance policy for bringing weapons to school, according to a New York Times report Monday.
Zero tolerance policies were instituted in many school districts across the country, at least in part due to violence at Columbine and Virginia Tech, the report notes. Their rigid enforcement is designed to eliminate the appearance of bias or discrimination on the part of school officials.
The school district's policy is enforced "regardless of intent" and "does not take into consideration a child's age," reports CBS News correspondent Jim Axelrod.
But residents, and some lawmakers, are now wondering why schools can't apply a more common-sense discretion to such instances.
"It just seems unfair," said Zachary, who is being home-schooled while his mother, Debbie Christie, tries to fight the suspension. That involved Zachary appearing before a district disciplinary committee with his karate instructor and mother's fiancé vouching for him as character witnesses.
"Zachary wears a suit and tie some days to school by his own choice because he takes school so seriously," his mother said. "He is not some sort of threat to his classmates."
Christie started a Web site, helpzachary.com, to drum up support for her son.
State Representative Teresa L. Schooley wrote the disciplinary committee, asking each member to "consider the situation, get all the facts, find out about Zach and his family and then act with common sense for the well-being of this child."
But the strict enforcement of the policy has its supporters.
"There is no parent who wants to get a phone call where they hear that their child no longer has two good seeing eyes because there was a scuffle and someone pulled out a knife," said George Evans, the school district board's president.
There has been a move to give school officials more flexibility in "weapon"-related incidents. After a third-grade girl was expelled for a year after bringing in a knife to cut the birthday cake her grandmother sent in to the class, a new law was passed allowing officials to modify punishments on a case-by-case basis. But that was for expulsions, not suspensions as Zachary is faced with. Another revision to the law is being drafted to address suspensions, according to the report.
NEW ORLEANS – A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."
Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."
If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.
Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.
Beth Humphrey, 30, and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.
Humphrey, an account manager for a marketing firm, said she and McKay, a welder, just returned to Louisiana. She plans to enroll in the University of New Orleans to pursue a masters degree in minority politics.
"That was one thing that made this so unbelievable," she said. "It's not something you expect in this day and age."
Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.
"We are looking forward to having children," Humphrey said. "And all our friends and co-workers have been very supportive. Except for this, we're typical happy newlyweds."
"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. "The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."
The ACLU sent a letter to the Louisiana Judiciary Committee, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and recommending "the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice."
"He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it," Schwartzmann said.
According to the clerk of court's office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.
Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.
The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk's office.
"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."
(This version corrects the spelling of Schwartzmann.))
I hate how the term racist is thrown around these days. That's a pretty mean thing to call someone if you think about it. (I realize the irony, but still).
Comments
Oh, and by the way... sweet eyeball tattoo..... Dune reference, perhaps?
...makes me miss Irwin giving the country a good name.
There are crimes that are detestable, yes, but in America the term "sex offender" is thrown around with way too little regard for the crime itself. What if you are 18 and have sex with a 15 year old? What if you thought she was 18? What if she even tricked you with a fake ID? What if it was consensual? What if it was just a one time mistake? These are all common defenses, and while sometimes legitimate, unfortunately fall through the cracks way too often, and innocent people who made simple mistakes can no longer have a normal life.
There was a great article in the Economist about this a few months ago. There was a father who, when he was in high school, had a consensual sexual relationship at 18 with a 16 year old girl. He got busted and had to register as a sex offender. Despite the fact that he actually got married to the girl in question later in life, because he is a registered offender he cannot live near schools, so his children have to travel far to get to school every day. He is not legally allowed to take his children to the park, he could go to jail for it. This is all because of something he did with someone 20 years ago whom he eventually married anyway. Is that right? There are plenty of people in cases like this from laws intended for sexual predators that have spiraled out of control.
For the sake of argument, let's say that this law is only intended for the worst of the worst, the Josef Fritzls of the world. That is fine at first. But remember what I said about the ratchet effect. Incoming politicians, wanting to seem tough on crime (who doesn't want stricter laws and punishments for Josef Fritzls?) will strengthen these laws and make them encompass more people. It is only a matter of time before someone who is leagues away from the type of people this law was originally intended for will be punished in the same way.
No politician has the balls to stand up against the ignorance and stupidity of the public and take a stand against what has gone too far. At the very least the person I mentioned could EVENTUALLY have his name removed from the list. It's not likely, but it's technically possible. Chemically neutering someone is a one time deal. There's no coming back from that.
America's unjust sex laws: An ever harsher approach is doing more harm than good, but it is being copied around the world
--
The reason I post this is because I want people to think about the situation of sex predator laws in the US right now. It is stuck in a dangerous spiral of punishing more people for less and less serious crimes. I know that Rob's article is about Poland, but wouldn't you be afraid of chemical castration becoming more and more of a blanket treatment against criminals? What if Poland succumbs, or is already succumbing, to the same ratchet effect as in America? What if an American politician tries to introduce this law because it's already in effect in Poland?
Edit: There was a second article in the Economist about the actual effectiveness of these laws, along with more stories of people who have to pay for the rest of their lives for something they did once as kids.
In Surprise, Nobel Peace Prize to Obama for Diplomacy
Nobel Committee gives gift to our shallow culture
*insert snarky yet oh-so-witty comment that simultaneously comments on Obama's Nobel Prize and reminds everyone AGAIN about my staunch conservatism*
This could be either effed up or somewhat amusing news, depending on your take. I could go either way, but this makes me feel a little weird, so I lean towards effed up.
And apparently, ardently alliterative.
Something seems a bit off here.
Though I sort of doubt the kid wears a tiny suit and tie on his own.
Well I'm sure they are in piles when they arrive at his home by boat, but it may be a stretch to call them his friends.