A judge in Detroit has ruled a federal law against FGM unconstitutional…

…thereby dismissing the key charges against two Michigan doctors and six others accused of subjecting at least nine minor girls to the cutting procedure in the nation’s first FGM case.

The historic case involves minor girls from Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, including some who cried, screamed and bled during the procedure and one who was given Valium ground in liquid Tylenol to keep her calm, court records show.

Some? Surely they all bled, and cried and screamed too.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that “as despicable as this practice may be,” Congress did not have the authority to pass the 22-year-old federal law that criminalizes female genital mutilation, and that FGM is for the states to regulate. FGM is banned worldwide and has been outlawed in more than 30 countries, though the U.S. statute had never been tested before this case.

Well, cool. Let’s ban it in New York and California but allow it in Texas and Mississippi. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that “as despicable as this practice may be,” Congress did not have the authority to pass the 22-year-old federal law that criminalizes female genital mutilation, and that FGM is for the states to regulate. FGM is banned worldwide and has been outlawed in more than 30 countries, though the U.S. statute had never been tested before this case.

“As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be … federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute,” Friedman wrote in his 28-page opinion, noting: “Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM … FGM is a ‘local criminal activity’ which, in keeping with long-standing tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress.”

“Tradition” can’t stop Trump firing Comey and Sessions and installing a corrupt hack as Acting Attorney General, but by god it can stop the government saying people can’t cut girls’ genitalia off.

For FGM survivor and social activist Mariya Taher, who heads a campaign out of Cambridge, Massachusetts, to ban FGM worldwide, Friedman’s ruling was a punch to the gut.

“Oh my God, this is crazy,”  said Taher, stressing she fears the ruling will put more young women in harm’s way. “Unfortunately, this is going to embolden those who believe that this must be continued … they’ll feel that this is permission, that it’s OK to do this.”

Taher, who, at 7, was subjected to the same type of religious cutting procedure that’s at issue in the Michigan case, said she doesn’t expect laws alone to end FGM. But they are needed, she stressed.

“This is a violation of one person’s human rights. It’s  a form of gender violence. … This is cultural violence,” 35-year-old Taher said.

Yasmeen Hassan, executive global director for Equality Now, an international women’s rights organization,  agreed, saying the ruling sends a disturbing message to women and girls.

“It says you are not important,” Hassan said, calling the ruling a “federal blessing” for FGM.

…

Friedman’s ruling also drew the ire of Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge.

“I’m angry that the federal judge dismissed this horrific case that affected upwards of a hundred girls who were brutally victimized and attacked against their will,” Jones said in a statement, noting 23 states don’t have FGM laws.

“This is why it was so important for Michigan to act. We set a precedent that female genital mutilation will not be tolerated here, and we did so by passing a state law that comes with a 15-year felony punishment,” Jones said. “I hope other states will follow suit.”

This is one time a Republican has it exactly right.

Sussex University yesterday issued a new policy which has some rather tricky elements.

The University of Sussex has today (Tuesday 20 November) published a Trans Equality Policy Statement.

The equality policy statement reaffirms that the University will at no time discriminate against people on the grounds of their gender identity or gender expression.

Well…what does that mean, exactly? Universities (and other institutions) shouldn’t discriminate against people on any grounds, should they. It’s right there in the words: discriminate against. Discrimination among is a different thing, and can be justified or not, depending on the particulars. Discrimination among can include extra help or reduced obligations; discrimination against clearly wouldn’t. So, great, University: don’t discriminate against people on any grounds.

The statement articulates the University’s position on inclusion for trans students and staff that is contained in its policies. It commits the University to treating all employees and students with respect, and seeks to provide a positive working and learning environment for everybody free from discrimination, harassment or victimisation.

Great. So let’s read the statement. It gives a list of promises.

= Requests to change name and gender on records will be handled promptly and staff and students will be made aware of any implications of the changes.

What if some smarty-boots student decides to make such a request every other day? Serious question. I can imagine being such a student and doing it to find out how they would deal with it.

Also the “students will be made aware” part is slightly creepy. Meaning what? All students will be instructed on the gender swap of one particular student whom they don’t necessarily even know? Why?

= The curriculum shall not rely on or reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people, and any materials within relevant courses and modules will positively represent trans people and trans lives.

What? So the university curriculum can’t include anything unpleasant about trans lives? And it can’t analyse or question the concept and the sub-concepts that shape it? It’s all yes yes happy happy, or nothing? Those are the choices?

= Transphobic propaganda, in the form of written materials, graffiti, music or speeches, will not be tolerated. We undertake to remove any such propaganda whenever it appears on the premises.

Oh. That’s interesting. Who decides what is “propaganda” as opposed to academic research or analysis? Or are they not even bothering with that and just calling everything “transphobic propaganda”? Seeing as how the more fanatical of the activists consider it transphobic to say that trans women are not literally women in every possible sense, that particular item looks very thought-control-like.

= We recognise that trans staff and students come from diverse backgrounds, and will strive to ensure they do not face discrimination on the grounds of their gender identity or gender expression or in relation to other aspects of their identity, for example, their race, age, religion or belief, disability or sexual orientation. In addition, assumptions will not be made about the gender identity or gender expression of partners of trans staff or students.

Notice anything left out of those “aspects of their identity”? Sex. It’s ok to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sex, just not of their gender identity. If you’re one of those obstinate people who decline to agree that they have a “gender identity,” you’re out of luck – discrimination against you is ok.

Hooray for diversity, except for women. Women are terrible.

Pompeo is fine with it, because hey, cruel world.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke to reporters after meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Meylut Cavusglu Tuesday afternoon, after President Trump released a statement saying the U.S. would stand with Saudi Arabia, regardless of what the intelligence community concludes about Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s involvement in the death of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul in October.

The CIA has assessed that Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, ordered the killing of Khashoggi, based mainly on an understanding of how the kingdom operates and the proximity of several participants in the killing to the heir-in-waiting, as well as the organizations involved.

While Trump has just thrown his stumpy little hands in the air and said “Who knows, who knows, no one can possibly know, now hand over the billions.”

Turkey has said it shared evidence with its partners, including the U.S., that shows it was a pre-meditated murder. The Turkish president has said it was a execution ordered from the “highest level” of the Saudi government.

“It’s a mean nasty world out there, the Middle East in particular,” Pompeo said. He said that the president’s chief concern was American safety. He said the “long, historic” relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia was critical for national security.

Pompeo also denied that Mr. Trump, in his statement about Khashoggi, suggested that the extrajudicial murder of a journalist was less important than U.S. security interests.

Can you say “non sequitur”?

Judge to Trump: no you can’t.

A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter where or how they entered the United States, dealing at least a temporary setback to the president’s attempt to clamp down on a huge wave of Central Americans crossing the border.

Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the government from carrying out a new rule that denies protections to people who enter the country illegally. The order, which suspends the rule until the case is decided by the court, applies nationally.

“Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Mr. Tigar wrote in his order.

I hear a chorus of Republicans in Congress…”What? Who, us? No we didn’t! That was that other Congress! We totally want Trump to drop the hammer on asylum seekers. It’s the American way!”

As a caravan of several thousand people journeyed toward the Southwest border, President Trump signed a proclamation on Nov. 9 that banned migrants from applying for asylum if they failed to make the request at a legal checkpoint. Only those who entered the country through a port of entry would be eligible, he said, invoking national security powers to protect the integrity of the United States borders.

Within days, the administration submitted a rule to the federal register, letting it go into effect immediately and without the customary period for public comment.

The White House said ok ok ok he can have his stupid press pass back, jeeeez. But he has to follow our new rules we just wrote down!

CNN dropped its lawsuit against the White House on Monday after officials told the network that they would restore reporter Jim Acosta’s press credentials as long as he abides by a series of new rules at presidential news conferences, including asking just one question at a time.

…

The White House’s move to restore Acosta’s pass, announced in a letter to the news network, appeared to be a capitulation to CNN in its brief legal fight against the administration…

…

Sanders and Shine said they had made a “final determination” that Acosta’s pass would be restored permanently as long as he followed new rules guiding reporters’ conduct at White House news conferences.

In a letter to Acosta, they wrote, “Should you refuse to follow these rules in the future, we will take action” to remove the pass.

Among the rules: Reporters must ask only one question of the president at news conferences, but they can follow up with another if the president consents. A reporter must then “yield the floor,” including giving up a microphone. Failure to abide by these rules, the White House letter said, will result in revocation of a journalist’s White House pass.

Per White House letter to Acosta on Nov. 19, here are the new rules for press conferences at the White House. pic.twitter.com/a6C2pmLv2K

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) November 19, 2018

Any rules about the president and the press secretary not lying? No, of course not.

From the annals of Women Who Pimp Their Granddaughters:

Davie was a client of the woman’s and kept in touch when he moved away from the Wellington area, where the woman lived.

The pair exchanged text messages, during which he asked her if she knew of any young people available for sex.

She sent him four nude photos of her granddaughter in exchange for a $40 mobile phone top-up, and he asked if she would be interested in making money from the child.

They discussed prices – Davie offered $1000, but the grandmother said she wanted a cheap car – what kind of contact would occur, and dates.

How old is the granddaughter? Ten. Plenty old enough to be raped by granny’s john, yeah? Granny probably would have taken the kid for a nice ride in her cheap car once she stopped bleeding.

Davie also said he knew someone who could train the child in sexual behaviour – Morgana Platt.

Platt, who was known as Malcolm John Platt, but now identifies as a woman, was jailed in 2009 for raping a 16-year-old girl in Christchurch, who later took her own life.

According to Parole Board documents, the 16-year-old indicated she killed herself because of Platt’s offending.

Platt and Davie had come up with a plan to find a vulnerable girl for Platt to train as a sex worker.

Well…to train as a rape victim. It seems just a tad euphemistic to call a ten-year-old pimped by her grandmother a “sex worker.”

Davie forwarded to Platt one of the photos of the 10-year-old. Platt described the girl as “yummy” and “delicious”.

Like a nice big bowl of ice cream, but with thoughts and feelings. Yum.

H/t Rob

Can people even think any more?

Another one of those “let’s decide to put on The Vagina Monologues so that we can then decide to cancel it and get into the news” situations.

Leaders at a college in Michigan decided to cancel its production of “The Vagina Monologues” because it’s discriminatory, given “not all women have vaginas.”

Right. By the same token, let’s cancel productions of “The Cherry Orchard” because not all orchards have cherry trees.

It’s not “discriminatory” for a play to be about some people as opposed to all people. A play about all people would be unwieldy and so long that it could never end, because new people keep getting born. Women who don’t have vaginas might like “The Vagina Monologues” despite its failure to be about them.

The women’s resource center at Eastern Michigan University put the kibosh on the famous production since it caters only to women who have the physical anatomy that accompanies the female sex, according to The Ann Arbor News.

Caters to? Since when are plays supposed to “cater to” anyone at all, let alone particular categories of people?

The decision came after the resource center conducted a survey, asking respondents about “The Vagina Monologues.” Those opposed to the drama said they were concerned about the fact that the production excludes some women, namely those who don’t have vaginas.

But, again – all plays exclude 99.99% of people, just as all novels do, all tv dramas do, all radio dramas do, and so on.

The resource center issued the following statement on the show’s cancelation:

We feel that making this decision is in line with the WRC mission of recognizing and celebrating the diverse representations of women on campus along with the overall mission of the Department of Diversity and Community Involvement, in which the WRC is housed, of supporting and empowering minoritized students and challenging systems and structures that perpetuate inequities.

We truly believe that it is important to center our minoritized students and this decision is in line with this mission driven value.

Some of the survey’s respondents said it’s just time to give up on “The Vagina Monologues,” written in 1994 by activist Eve Ensler, because the play can’t fit into today’s far-left feminist movement.

Oh but it’s not far-left (and it’s not feminist, either). This Mai IdenTitY shit is very right-wing and individualist, as well as very apolitically delusional and fantasy-based and fucking loony tunes.