Chretien, Romanow, McMurtry condemn Ford’s use of notwithstanding clause

TORONTO — Three prominent former politicians who negotiated the inclusion of the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are condemning the Ontario government’s use of the rare provision to push through legislation that was deemed unconstitutional by the courts.

Former prime minister Jean Chretien, former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow and former Ontario attorney general Roy McMurtry have issued a statement saying the clause wasn’t meant to be used to circumvent proper process.

The three men say they are calling on Ontario’s Progressive Conservative legislators to stand up to Premier Doug Ford, who announced Monday he would invoke the notwithstanding clause to override a judge’s ruling.

 

The judge had struck down legislation to reduce the size of Toronto city council in the middle of an election, saying it infringed on voters’ and candidates’ right to free expression.

Ford justified using the clause by saying that “politically appointed” judges shouldn’t interfere with democratically elected governments.

The premier also touted Chretien as a supporter of the clause when pressed on the issue during question period Thursday.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/chretien-romanow-mcmurtry-condemn-ford-s-use-of-notwithstanding-clause-1.4094804

Eurodance for Friday

Cyber-4 – Cosmic Message (Eurodance)

 

Cyber-4 – Area 51 (Eurodance)

 

Caramell – Gummibåt (Bubbledance)

 

Caramell Vad Heter Du

 

Caramell Spelar Ingen Roll

 

Reset – Blue

 

Sonic Dream Collective – Oh Baby All (Official)

 

Sonic Dream Collective – Don’t Go Breaking My Heart (Official)

 

Antique – Dunata Dunata

 

Agata – Jak Mi Się Chce POLSKI POWER DANCE Lata 90-te 1996

 

 

Feminism’s Racism Against Non Whites: Jury to decide if Brown University railroaded student in Title IX case because he’s black

https://www.thecollegefix.com/jury-to-decide-if-brown-university-railroaded-student-in-title-ix-case-because-hes-black/

Threatened with vandalism charge after he tried to commit suicide

A black student athlete accused of sexual misconduct by a white student has painted “a picture of an ongoing, racially discriminatory pattern of conduct” in his Title IX proceeding, a federal judge ruled last month.

Brown University lost its motion to dismiss all claims by “John Doe,” meaning it’s going to face trial on allegations that it discriminated against him as both a man and a black person.

Two of John’s allegations about Brown’s attempts to get him off campus are particularly explosive.

It filed a complaint on behalf of a second woman who had actually told administrators her intimate encounter with John was consensual, and it later threatened to charge him with vandalism when he attempted suicide.

“Over the past fifteen months, this matter has been governed by three separate complaints and been subjected to two motions to dismiss,” U.S. District Judge John McConnell wrote in a memorandum and order. “The time has finally come for this case to go on to discovery and toward an ultimate resolution.”

The issue of race and Title IX has drawn limited attention in the media, but it could draw more if Brown doesn’t settle with John.

Journalist Emily Yoffe wrote about the phenomenon of black male students accused by non-black female students in The Atlantic a year ago. She contends black men are “vastly overrepresented in the cases I’ve tracked.”

It’s also the subject of advocacy by four feminist Harvard law professors: Elizabeth Bartholet, Jeannie Suk Gersen, Nancy Gertner and Janet Halley.

Three years after publicly criticizing Harvard for removing “the most basic elements of fairness and due process” from its revised sexual-misconduct policy in 2014, they asked the Department of Education to investigate “the disproportionate impact on racial minorities of discipline for campus sexual misconduct.”

Suk Gersen, Gertner and Halley did not respond to College Fix emails about the Brown ruling, and Bartholet said she didn’t know enough about the case to comment.

Accuser keeps violating protective order – but he must leave

The black student’s lawsuit claims he was “targeted because of his gender, race and racial stereotypes about black athletes.”

“Jane Doe,” a sorority sister a year ahead of him at Brown, was the aggressor in a romantic tryst gone wrong behind the bar where they met in September 2013. The white woman bit his lip, choked him and restrained him against the wall as he tried to leave, John alleged.

Brown charged him with “nonconsensual contact involving violence or intimidation” and underage drinking after Jane filed a complaint in December, but the university refused to act on his subsequent complaint against her, John said.

The proceeding against him was riddled with preferential treatment for his white accuser, according to McConnell’s summary of John’s claims.

The university let Jane amend her statement of allegations without giving it to the Student Conduct Board 24 hours ahead of time, giving John “no opportunity” to prepare a new defense. It prevented him from asking her about the changes; her new story was “inconsistent” with the original and what she had told friends.

Brown also let Jane apply “racist and/or misandristic” stereotypes to John and accuse his coach of “creating a misogynistic and hyper masculine environment,” while blocking him from asking questions about her alleged assault of him.

MOREBlack students claim rape was uncorroborated, witnesses threatened

He beat the “violence” charge but not the overall “nonconsensual sexual touching” or underage-drinking charges, and received a yearlong deferred suspension.

Jane repeatedly violated the protective order imposed against both of them and confidentiality rules even during the proceeding, telling others he was a “sexual predator” and showing up to John’s team parties, according to John.

Brown officials discriminated against him during the proceeding and the aftermath. He learned later that Maria Suarez, associate dean of student support and John’s “counselor,” was also serving accusers including Jane – a violation of Brown’s conflict-of-interest policy.

Yolanda Castillo-Appollonio (below), director of student conduct and community standards, also brushed off a complaint by John’s mother about Jane showing up to John’s events. She allegedly said “it is normally expected that the guy would leave the area.”

‘We got your boy now’ – and an accuser who never accused him

Suarez’s use of a term often considered a slur against black men convinced Judge McConnell that Brown must face a jury on John’s racial discrimination claim.

In May 2014, the university notified John that “Sally Roe” had accused him of sexual misconduct, and it barred him from campus immediately with no “pre-charge investigation.”

Suarez told him he would “pretty much” be found guilty and expelled unless he could prove he wasn’t with Sally. The day before, Suarez had told John’s coach “We got your boy now. He is out of here.”

Brown refused to explain the new charges to John’s parents over summer 2014, or even why it closed the investigation in August and let him return. His only memory of Sally was that they “made out” in a dorm bathroom the previous October.

Suarez again threatened to have John removed from campus after he attempted suicide following a “nonsexual encounter” with a woman. If he didn’t voluntarily leave, he would be charged with vandalism for throwing himself in front of a moving car and breaking the windshield.

MOREMale student attempted suicide after Cornell double-jeopardy suspension

After Brown let him return for the 2015-2016 academic year, John learned from Sally that Jane had promised university officials she could produce another “victim” of John’s. That’s why Sally was called in by Dean Suarez and Vice President Margaret Klawunn and asked “leading questions”:

Brown officials generated the claim against John. Sally herself never felt anything “bad” happened between them and never filed a complaint. Sally apologized to John for the grief she had caused him.

Sally’s account is similar to that told in another Title IX lawsuit by a black athlete, Colorado State University-Pueblo’s Grant Neal, who eventually received a settlement. The university deemed his white sexual partner a rape victim, but she claimed their relationship was consensual.

Is Brown’s behavior ‘utterly intolerable in a civilized community’?

Judge McConnell dismissed part or all of five counts among John’s 12 counts against Brown, dropping some of them because they exceeded the statute of limitations.

Even though John faced two investigations, McConnell believes his pleaded facts “tell the tale of a singular ongoing and evolving interaction between John and Brown, motivated by discriminatory animus,” which put some of his claims within the statute of limitations:

The Court cannot ignore the direct link between the pre-limitations period conduct and the allegations that fall within the three·year anchor period. Any such distinction would be artificial and ignore why what happened happened. …

John continued to face discriminatory conditions after the first investigation ended, into the investigation of the Sally incident, and thus into the applicable statute of limitations period.

John’s racial-discrimination claim also remains within the statute of limitations because he alleged specific discriminatory actions during the first investigation, as well as Brown’s deliberate indifference to his white accuser’s violations and Suarez’s “boy” comment to John’s coach.

His claims of Brown’s continual preferential treatment of Jane, “if proven, could lead a jury to find that Brown was deliberately indifferent to known harassment so that its response to that harassment was unreasonable,” McConnell wrote.

“Because the decision to launch the second investigation, and the decision to separate [John from campus], were directly related to the first investigation, John plausibly alleges that those decisions were affected by his gender,” the judge continued.

MOREIf hearing panel can consider ‘1000 girls,’ why not 1,000 whites?

Brown also “fails to argue persuasively” why John’s selective enforcement claim can’t move forward, when the university investigated Jane’s purported complaint on behalf of Sally:

Both [John and Jane] brought complaints of sexual assault. Both complaints of sexual assault occurred, at most, within six months of each other. Brown investigated Jane’s complaint; it ignored John’s complaint.

John has “plausibly alleged intentional racial discrimination” by arguing the white women, Jane and Sally, could exercise their rights under Brown’s code of student conduct but he could not. “It is plausible that a jury could find” the dean’s use of “boy” showed racial hostility as well, McConnell wrote.

Even John’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is moving forward. Rhode Island, where Brown is located, requires John to show the university’s behavior toward him was “utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”

Again, because the “boy” remark that suggested racial motivation for the second investigation could be considered reckless enough to drive John to self-harm, a jury could conclude it violates state law, McConnell said.

John’s claim that “Brown violated his procedural rights in ordering his interim separation [from campus] pending the outcome of the second Title IX investigation” is also moving to a jury. If John is correct, this was an “old complaint” and thus he showed no “immediate threat” on campus.

“We believe that Brown has a strong case to present to the court as this matter proceeds in the months ahead and we will respond through the legal process,” Brian Clark, director of news for Brown, told The Fix:

The decision narrows the scope of the case and appears to reflect the court’s interest in hearing the arguments of all parties, which is understandable given the national discussions regarding issues of sexual misconduct on college campuses.

Brown maintains it did nothing wrong, however. “Brown’s focus remains on ensuring a disciplinary process that balances our obligations to both complainants and respondents and is fundamentally fair to all members of the community,” Clark said.

MORECampus kangaroo courts target nonwhites, ‘nobody wants to talk about it’

 

https://www.thecollegefix.com/bulletin-board/campus-kangaroo-courts-target-nonwhite-men-nobody-wants-talk/

Campus kangaroo courts target nonwhite men: ‘Nobody wants to talk about it’

 

Colgate University’s student population was 4.2 percent black in the 2013-2014 academic year.

Fifty percent of the alleged sexual violations reported to the central New York university that year were against black males. They were 40 percent of the students “formally adjudicated.”

In a three-year academic period from 2012 through 2015, black men were a quarter of sexual-misconduct reports, 21 percent of adjudications and 15 percent of those “found responsible.” (Asians make up 3 percent of Colgate, but Asian male figures are similarly skewed.)

We only know about these figures – which are never voluntarily disclosed by universities – because Colgate was investigated by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights for “potential race discrimination” in Title IX proceedings, journalist Emily Yoffe writes in the third article in her three-part Atlantic series on campus rape policies.

The plausible racial discrimination in Title IX adjudications – particularly against foreign men of color – is the issue “nobody wants to talk about,” an Ivy League professor told Yoffe:

He said students are pushing their boundaries and that many hook up with a partner of a different ethnicity for the first time. But then, “if there is any kind of perceived injury—emotional or physical—when you cross racial lines, there’s likely to be more animus. It needs to be talked about and hasn’t been.”

The disproportionate rates of sexual-misconduct complaints against nonwhite college men is largely anecdotal, but it has been known for at least a few years, as Yoffe notes.

Harvard Law Prof. Janet Halley, a self-described feminist, wrote about the phenomenon in a 2015 Harvard Law Review article, and she included it in written testimony to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee later that year. (Halley and her fellow feminist colleagues recently asked the Department of Education to protect due process for accused students.)

Yoffe herself says that when race is mentioned or alluded to in campus adjudications that make the news, it’s “illuminating”:

Usually the reports don’t disclose race, but sometimes it is mentioned, and if the accused is named, it’s often possible to determine his race through photo searches or other online information. Black men make up only about 6 percent of college undergraduates. They are vastly overrepresented in the cases I’ve tracked.

Several lawsuits against colleges by punished men of color cite alleged racial discrimination, and academics who have participated in campus disciplinary systems (including Halley) are alarmed by the racial dynamics.

One of them is a former Colgate professor, Melissa Kagle, who “became a prominent critic of Colgate’s handling of sexual misconduct” and was one of three people who filed the race-discrimination complaint against it:

Her co-complainants were minority students who’d been accused of assault or harassment, and to whom Kagle had become an informal adviser. … In several cases that she’d come to know closely, at first by happenstance and then because minority men began to seek her out for assistance, “people believed something terrible happened when it hadn’t.”

Kagle believes that men of color—and especially foreign men of color, students from Africa and Asia—were uniquely defenseless when charged with sexual assault, typically lacking financial resources, a network of support, and an understanding of their rights. … I spoke with two women who made harassment complaints against a Rwandan student who was later expelled. One said she hadn’t wanted to make a complaint, but was told that it would help another woman feel safer; neither believed expulsion was the right outcome.

Read the article.