- Image via Wikipedia
Al Franken, now a senator, introduced his first piece of legislation. His proposed amendment was inspired by the plight of Jamie Leigh Jones.
The details of the Halliburton incident are rather terrible. Not only was Jones gang raped by fellow Halliburton employees, she was locked in a shipping container and apparently threatened with termination of her employment if she left Iraq for medical treatment. In response to these crimes, Halliburton insisted that Jones’ situation only merited arbitration and not a criminal investigation. In September of 2009 the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals ruled 2 to 1 that Jones’ injuries did not relate to her employment and hence are not covered by her contract. Oddly enough, the court did assert: “We do not hold that, as a matter of law, sexual-assault allegations can never ‘relate to’ someone’s employment.” It would certainly be interesting to see what sort of employment this would apply to.
Franken’s amendment forbids “the Defense Department from contracting with companies that require employees to resolve sexual assault allegations and other claims through arbitration.” It passed 68-30. Interestingly, some Republican senators vigorously opposed this amendment. This lead Jon Stewart to make an ironic comparison between this attack and the responses of the same senators to news of ACORN’s “pimp” incident.
The comparison is rather apt and points out a rather typical inconsistency in how people apply their (alleged) principles. To delve into a little ethical reasoning, what seems to be going on is a case on inconsistent application. The basis idea is that people must, on the pain of being inconsistent, apply the same principle in the same way across cases. Naturally, if there are relevant differences between the cases, then the application need not be inconsistent. After all, a relevant difference between cases would justify a different application of the principle.
In the case of ACORN, the general attack was that Acorn was accountable for the misdeeds of its employees. A specific attack was that Acorn should be denied federal support because of these misdeeds. On the face of it, these attacks are reasonable. After all, organizations have a degree of moral and legal accountability regarding those they employ-especially when the employees are acting within company owned property. The federal government does, of course, have the power to decide which groups get money and it seems eminently reasonable to consider the behavior of such groups when making such a decision. Because of this, I agree that Acorn should be taken to task, should police itself better, and that their funding should be reviewed.
In the case of the bill, Franken is proposing the same sort of standard be applied to contractors. If the logic holds for Acorn (and it does), by analogy it should hold with the contractors. After all, just as we do not want federal money going to folks who are willing to advise fake pimps, we certainly do not want it going to those who seem intent on protecting real rapists (and themselves, of course).
Naturally, the folks who are against ACORN and for Halliburton will see what they take as a relevant difference: they do not like ACORN and they like Halliburton. Of course, this is not a morally relevant difference.
Obviously, if someone can present facts that break the analogy between ACORN and Halliburton, then this argument would fail. Further, if anyone can successfully argue that companies should be protected from legal action by employees who are raped by other employees while on the job then the overall justification of the amendment would fail.
Related articles by Zemanta
- You: Halliburton rape case spurs new rule (guardian.co.uk)
- Meet The Senators Who Voted Against The Franken Amendment (huffingtonpost.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
I agree that sexual assault charges do not relate to a person’s employment. Not any more than any other crime committed upon employees. If one person steals a pack of cigarettes from another, does that relate to employment?
As far as ACORN and Halliburton’s issues, what we must look for are patterns and culture. It seems plain to me that the ACORN employees from various areas had no problem openly discussing criminal activity with complete strangers. They are a political organization with a political adgenda. There are allegations of misconduct from multiple directions, including the skimming of millions of dollars by the owner’s brother, voter fraud, and the pimp episodes. Clearly, ACORN supports a culture of criminality.
“Interestingly, some Republican senators vigorously opposed this amendment.”
Were all 30 Republicans?
And I don’t “like” Halliburton. I did find many of the accusations against it to be rather strange and sprouting from the usual suspects. That being said, if, do to any investigations, it is found that Halliburton sports a culture of defending sexual aggressors and covering up for rapists, then yes, the analogy holds. I’m for rooting out all corruption and illegality in government (and private organizations for that matter, such as Halliburton).
Stewart is the Darling of the Left. I don’t really know what his point is from his analogy, other than to make an oblique defense of ACORN. I think it’s plain to most that rape is not acceptable. Maybe he can do some interviews wearing a fake mustache and hidden camera and get some Halliburton employees to tell him how to get away with rape.
“Were all 30 Republicans?”
Yep.
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308
Probably just a coincidence. . .It looks like they all might be males–John Ensign included. . .many of them the “usual suspects. Probably just another coincidence.
Republicans for the amendment: Voinovich,(that turncoat)Snowe, Murkowski, Hutchinson, LeMieux, Lugar, Hatch!, Grassley!,Collins, Bennett.
But let’s rejoice that the Republicans have managed some degree of bipartisanship. Too bad the Democrats cannot do the same. 100% “yeas”. Those partisan bastards.
Note:I don’t think you’ll ever hear a rape victim equate her experience with having a pack of cigarettes stolen from her.And I doubt any court would find the comparison compelling.
The severity of the crime has no bearing on the enforcement of the law that makes it a crime.
You’re trying really hard to find in what I wrote, a defense of rapists. Like a former cop has compassion for rapists…
Ridiculous.
“’Were all 30 Republicans?’
Yep.”
It was an honest question. Seems bipartisanship isn’t something you aspire to. Fine with me. I don’t want to see both sides either; just the right side.
Again: Prosecute the rapists. Most people who commit crimes work somewhere. I just don’t see what this has to do with Halliburton, unless they held secret meetings to figure out how more people in their employ could get away with rape.
I think that Halliburton’s involvement is that the attack took place on company property and involved company employees. While I am not a lawyer, I would speculate that if companies can be held accountable for harassment in the workplace, then they can also be held accountable for crimes occurring in the workplace under comparable conditions.
Believe me when I say I make no presumptions —one way or the other—about present or former cops,present or former postal workers,or, for that matter, present or former cigarette thieves—former anything, for that matter.
What would indeed be utterly “ridiculous” is to presume that no cop or former cop might be a rapist or have compassion for one. I present for your consideration:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/policeman-sentenced-to-18-years-for-rapes-and-sex-attacks-in-cells-715435.html
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/981126/1998112665.html
Perhaps you should have said “former [American] policeman”. . . 🙂
Oop! I wrote to soon: This one’s even better!
So, even an on-duty American cop can rape women. Perhaps these cops all hate themselves and have no compassion for rapists. I won’t rush to judgment. If the courts and the legal system are to be believed, a few cops can and do rape women. It’s possible they even do it after they retire or are dismissed from the force. . .
I was merely pointing out that, in my opinion (“I don’t think that you’ll ever . . .) the analogy in your first paragraph third sentence (10/13, 9:07) was somewhat “unfortunate”…to say the least.
“It was an honest question.” And I provided an honest answer. I hope it met your expectations.
“Seems bipartisanship isn’t something you aspire to.” Where on earth did you get that idea? Did anything about the vote surprise you? Disappointed in the ten defectors? Any surprises for you there? Proud of the “Clump of Thirty”?
[ I posted the original of this post at 1pm. It’s awaiting moderation, likely because it contains too many urls to get past filter requirements. So I’ll modify it a bit, and break it into parts and see if that works. Here goes.]
Believe me when I say I make no presumptions —one way or the other—about present or former cops,present or former postal workers,or, for that matter, present or former cigarette thieves— or former anything, for that matter.
What would indeed be utterly “ridiculous” is to presume that no cop or former cop might be a rapist or have compassion for one. I present for your consideration 2 articles and a youtube about a British, a Hong Kongian?” and a Spanish policeman –gleaned from the first two pages of results from Googling “policeman rapist”. The urls will follow in separate posts.
Perhaps you should have said “former [American] policeman”. . .
Oop! I wrote to soon: This one’s even better!
So, even an on-duty American cop can rape women. Perhaps these cops all hate themselves and have no compassion for rapists. I won’t rush to judgment. If the courts and the legal system are to be believed, these few cops could and did rape women. It’s possible some might even do it after they retire or are dismissed from the force. . .
I was merely pointing out that, in my opinion (”I don’t think that you’ll ever . . .) the analogy in your first paragraph third sentence (10/13, 9:07) was somewhat “unfortunate”…to say the least.
“It was an honest question.” And I provided an honest answer. I hope it met your expectations.
“Seems bipartisanship isn’t something you aspire to.” Where on earth did you get that idea? Did anything about the vote surprise you? Disappointed in the ten defectors? Any surprises for you there? Proud of the “Clump of Thirty”?
As promised:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/policeman-sentenced-to-18-years-for-rapes-and-sex-attacks-in-cells-715435.html
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/981126/1998112665.html
And finally–
It’s probably having two videos in the same post that causes the need for moderation, isn’t it?
“They are a political organization with a political adgenda. ” This is exactly where the biggest problem lies with Acorn. They get tax payer money to be non-partisan yet they have their own political goals. This is why they should have no government funding and not because of some rogue employees. this has been very distracting to the real problems with Acorn.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/07/acorn-throws-out-republican-voter-registrations/
The point of Franken’s amendment is to eliminate the binding arbitration clauses from employment contracts in DoD contractors. It is my understanding that the binding arbitration clauses relate to the ability of the employee to sue the employer, and have no bearing whatsoever on criminal charges, which are crimes against the state. Yet somehow people are making it sound as if the binding arbitration clauses can somehow shield people from criminal charges. This is nonsense. A good example is the Roman Polanski case, where the victim says not to press charges, but we heard over and over again that the crime was not just against her, but against the state as well.
The coverage of the case wasn’t clear about how it impacted the criminal charges. Logically, one would think that the criminal aspect of such cases would be distinct from the issue with the employer.