To bloody love Madonna for doing this?

[Destinysdaughter]

I've been watching the speeches from the Washington women's march today and have felt so inspired and uplifted by them, it's really given me hope, didn't know Madonna was going to be there and I don't want to take away anything from the other speakers as they've all been brilliant but I just wanted to say well done Madonna for being there and adding your voice ( and admittedly celebrity kudos and attention) to this amazing show of dissent, power and love.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/live/2017/jan/21/womens-march-on-washington-and-other-anti-trump-protests-around-the-world-live-coverage?page=with:block-5883cfe4e4b00b8fc2ae363c#block-5883cfe4e4b00b8fc2ae363c

I'm not saying there aren't negative attitudes towards boys mother. I have two sons, I don't want them growing up thinking that they can't pursue something they love because "it's for women" and I also don't want them growing thinking they own the place purely because they own a penis. My examples all relate to girls and women because the thread was about the women's marches.

This isn't actually correct. They are not being asked to prove it was rape, they are being asked to report it to a GP or social worker before their claim is processed. Seems pretty reasonable. There isn't a time frame in which they have to do this either.

Would you feel comfortable disclosing details of a sexual attack carried out against you to a stranger? The third party then has to provide evidence to DWP/HMRC that your circumstances at the time of conception are consistent with those of someone who has been raped. What happens if they decide the circumstances aren't consistent and that you're making it up?

There's loads more I want to say about this policy but it would need to be a thread of its own.

Do we know that? Even if she had, that wouldn't have been propaganda. Because that's not what propaganda is.

You are mixing up two different subjects. I never said this was propoganda, you went off saying you suspect the police of covering up arrests.... which is bizarre and has nothing to do with anything. I was pointing out it wasn't all peacful because we know the police should be invoved with at least one person Madonna.

Honestly, reading this thread I do wonder if that fact is lost in cultural translation somehow.

I tihnk somewhere along the line you've missunderstood something.

Madonna is now going to be investigated by the US Secret police for saying she would blow up the White House. With any luck she'll never be seen again.

I did mix up the riot though, that was unconnected.
But it's not hlep when you get this and this type of propoganda tweeting confusing the issue:

The full photo is apparently this seems to be about the anti trump rally on the 20th

This is the womans march panel

She's only in it for the attention.

Anyone spouting the shite she did about the W House deserves to get themselves in a power load of crap.

Rorty. We can but hope.

Prompto - Would you feel comfortable disclosing details of a sexual attack carried out against you to a stranger? The third party then has to provide evidence to DWP/HMRC that your circumstances at the time of conception are consistent with those of someone who has been raped. What happens if they decide the circumstances aren't consistent and that you're making it up?

Obviously claims of rape have to be taken very seriously and have to be treated sensitively. However, there has to be some way for the Government to be able to substantiate a claim, rather than taking someone's word for it, otherwise people who are innocent get accused of things they have not done and sometimes people do lie unfortunately. How would they even know about the rape if the victim has not reported it?

It becomes another stick to beat rape victims with. If the woman does report it to this third party and if they believe her (which they might not, something which in itself is worrying - we only need to look at current assessment processes for disability payments to see what a pile of shit current decision making processes are), say she then decides to take it to the police too. "She's making it up for the money" then becomes the new "she was asking for it". The financial element at stake means that fewer women will come forward because they know there will be people who will think they're doing it for the money, just like now where they don't report it because they were drunk/flirting/in a relationship with their rapist. And there will be women who do come forward but will have doubt poured on their claims due to the financial gain involved.

Domestic abuse will affect approximately 1 in 4 women at some point in their lifetime. Of that 1 in 4, how many do you think will suffer rape as part of the overall abuse? If a woman reports that her third child is the product of rape by her partner, she still isn't allowed to claim for that child unless she leaves that partner/no longer lives with them. Considering the cuts to domestic abuse support services (a council near to me is planning to stop all domestic abuse support services due to funding issues), lack of spaces in women's refuges and lack of help available for women leaving abusive partners it's not as simple as "leave him".

This ruling from the government is harmful to women.

Prompto - If a woman reports that her third child is the product of rape by her partner, she still isn't allowed to claim for that child unless she leaves that partner/no longer lives with them

But if she stays with him then the extra payment will be benefiting him as well so rewarding her abuser and will potentially discourage her from leaving an abusive relationship. I don't think the government could be seen to be allowing taxpayers money to continue to go towards an abuser as this would be seen as condoning and even encouraging it. Obviously there is no easy solution but I don't think they can just give out money without any checks and taking peoples word for it. There has to be some kind of checks in place even for such sensitive matters because of the possibility of accusations against innocent people, people lying etc.

We need to be very careful about attaching our own thoughts to those of celebrities. Sometimes a celebrity makes a speech and a comment and it resonates with lots of women, but beware. As celebrities they are used to hogging the limelight in given situations. While standing up for their rights is very commendable, I wonder about their honest passion for the subject. There are a number of women who advocate women's rights and yet their actions speak otherwise. If you ally yourself to these type of women then you are sending out mixed messages - don't abuse the rights of women, but I can if I want to because I am a woman. There is a lot of this going on at the moment with various female celebrities and I wonder if they really realise they are continually sending out mixed messages?

If I threatened to blow anywhere up, I would be up in court and on the no fly list.
Madonna will probably get a ticking off - but she will probably dress that up in to some hysteria about her rights, etc.

*stubborn, have a Google for Dudley mosque. There was a lot of local opposition to a new mosque based on the fact the land it was to be built on was designated for buildings to provide employment such as factories and offices. It also wasn't in keeping with the local area which had a medieval character. All fairly reasonable objections, but the EDL hijacked the campaign and made it all about 'no mosques' and 'this is a Black Country area about mining and beer and mosques have no place here'.

I know personally that planned protests in Rotherham by victims groups and their supporters were stopped for the same reasons as I know people involved in them. The victims don't want to be associated with that because it discredits them.

They hijacked events in memory of Lee Rigby and overshadowed a peaceful remembrance event in Woolwich by kicking off in central London.

Shotton in Co Durham had objections put I re converting a pub to an Islamic centre which centred around it not having dedicated off street parking in a highly congested area. Again, hijacked by the EDL.

They hijack forces home coming parades:

sheffield.indymedia.org.uk/2010/06/454452.html?c=on

They hijacked a Sikh protest against the mishandling of the case of a Sikh girl being assaulted by a Muslim man.

I could go on...but it's bedtime.

But if you organise a March on a sensitive issue even with the best intentions you're probably going to end up being attacked by the far left and far right which is a pretty frightening prospect*

So, hang on.....I asked you for examples of left wingers violently disrupting protest marches, which you assured me always happens, and here you've given me a long list of protests that have been muscled in on by the English Defence League. Not a left wing organisation. By a long shot.Not a whisper of any disruption by left wingers, at all. In addition, you've suddenly started muttering about the threat of the far right, which was mysteriously absent in your earlier posts until you were called on it.

So, come on, I'm still waiting for an example of a nice, moderate, non- fascist or racist protest being disrupted by those evil lefties...

Fuck, my capacity to do bold has been hijacked. I blame the CIA...

Madonna was just awful and I'm still unsure what the thrust of the argument was, particularly as one of the co-organisers of this 'grassroots' (allegedly) marches was Linda Sarsour, a pro-Sharia Law activist. Since when was Sharia law in favour of women's rights?

"you went off saying you suspect the police of covering up arrests..."
Who did WHAT? And you think I misunderstood something? No, I was saying that I know the protests were peaceful not because the organizers or representatives of the protests said so, but because the police said so.
There's no need to investigate Madonna, because she did and said nothing that was against the law. Which is as it should be. The First Amendment guarantee of free speech is still, and will always be, the most important law in the United States. And long may it reign.

On a completely unrelated topic apparently there are several journalists being prosecuted for reporting on the riots on Friday. (Technically they were arrested for rioting, based it seems on the evidence that they were there.) Scary, scary shit.
On the plus side, Trump appears to have pissed off CNN and prompted them to start reporting actual news. Which is hopeful.

"I tihnk somewhere along the line you've missunderstood something."
That may be, but this thread is the only place, online or in real life, that I've seen anybody not understand what this protest was actually about. Anybody who's not terminally hard of thinking, at any rate. I assumed it was cultural.

There's no need to investigate Madonna, because she did and said nothing that was against the law. Which is as it should be. The First Amendment guarantee of free speech is still, and will always be, the most important law in the United States. And long may it reign.

Apart from the fact she was Inciting violence.....

That may be, but this thread is the only place, online or in real life, that I've seen anybody not understand what this protest was actually about.

It was an anti trump protest which cast the net very wide, Everyone gets this. Some people myself included are of the opinion it was about so many things that their wasn't a focus, just a massive shambles that was hijacked by a certain celebrity.

see, this thread is specifically about Madonna, the hypocrite who has herself sexually assulted a teenager on stage, offered blow jobs for votes and incited voiolence at a peaceful Protest and the opinions of her being at the womans march when her own actions over the last year alone are the oppisite of EVERYTHING it was protesting about.

And my point? A Soros funded activist whose very pro Sharia Law? canadafreepress.com/article/the-muslim-veil-not-pink-psy-cap-was-the-real-symbol-behind-yesterdays-big

"Apart from the fact she was Inciting violence....."
Which is, I will repeat myself, not illegal.

If it was anyone other than her saying that they wanted to blow the White House up, they would've been arrested on the spot.

Dumb, talentless, attention-seeking cow. That's what she is.

Which is, I will repeat myself, not illegal.

Except that it is.

Here's a task for you: go to an American airport and say that you want to blow up a plane. See what happens.

"Here's a task for you: go to an American airport and say that you want to blow up a plane. See what happens."
That's a direct threat. Threats are illegal. Saying something that somebody else might construe as an invitation to commit a violent act is not illegal. If it was, Donald Trump would be in jail.

"Dumb, talentless, attention-seeking cow. That's what she is."
Which is beside the point.

That's a direct threat. Threats are illegal. Saying something that somebody else might construe as an invitation to commit a violent act is not illegal. If it was, Donald Trump would be in jail.

How is "I've thought a lot about blowing up the White House" different from "I've thought a lot about blowing up a plane"? You'd be arrested and likely charged for the latter.

If you're standing on a random city street and said "I've thought a lot about blowing up a plane" the response would be very different than if you were standing in the airport. Likewise, "I've thought a lot about blowing up the White House" would be a completely different statement if she was standing in the Oval Office.
Regardless, it's still not illegal to say something that might cause another person to decide to act in a violent manner.

If you're standing on a random city street and said "I've thought a lot about blowing up a plane" the response would be very different than if you were standing in the airport. Likewise, "I've thought a lot about blowing up the White House" would be a completely different statement if she was standing in the Oval Office.

Really? Would it? I don't think so.

Regardless, it's still not illegal to say something that might cause another person to decide to act in a violent manner.

I mean, that's what Charles Manson did and his ass is parked in jail.