Comments about ‘Why some oppose extension to Violence Against Women Act’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Feb. 14 2013 12:10 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

If "a victim, is a victim, is a victim", and "violence is violence", then why the need to have it just for women? What about protection for men from women? Spousal abuse and rape also happen to men perpetrated by women. Why do we keep segmenting our laws? I thought the law and justice were suppose to be blind?

Salt Lake City, UT

[Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, for example, opposes a provision in the bill that "grants tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands,"]

Too bad. If you don't want to be tried by Italian courts on rape charges, don't rape someone in Italy. If you don't want to be tried in tribal courts on rape charges, don't rape someone on tribal land. Rubio is just being pro-rapist.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

You comment can be paraphrased as: "I am tolerant and anyone who disagrees is a rapist". That mentality is exactly why I have no respect for the hard left.
Native American lands are NOT in Italy, but they are in the USA; Tribal Courts do not have all the same constitutional protections as federal courts.
This version of VAWA is NOT the same as the bi-partisan law originally co-sponsored by Orin Hatch. Senate Democrats deliberately politicized it knowing that it would cause Republicans to question - allowing the passive/aggressive left to play the phony "war on women" card.
The truth is: (as Obama10 states) "a victim, is a victim, is a victim&", and feminists crying victim while actually enjoying preference is incredibly hypocritical and disingenuous.
If you don't want to be accused of sexism, then don't be a politically correct sexist.

spring street

claiming that alt is saying "I am tolerant and anyone who disagrees is a rapist" is more of a straw man then a paraphrase.
secondly Native American tribal lands are sovereign nations.
thirdly your need to label others as passive aggressive and intentionally misinterpret what they say speaks more to your lack of a legitimate argument then does about the people you are attacking.

So lets try again can you give us an argument against this bill that does not include comments about what you think about the left and feminist. If there is a legitimate concern it should not be that hard.

spring street

the violence against women act was first enacted in 1994, Hatch actually helped write and champion the VAWA in 1994 and its reauthorization twice after that. So lets talk about the time line of this other law Hatch proposed and why he really is opposing its reauthorization this time.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

We should quickly draft a bill against violence against those between 5 feet 8 and 5 feet 9.5 wearing red or green shirts.

I can find many examples of people who have been attacked and are between 5 feet 8 and 5 feet 9.5 and wearing red or green shirts.

And dont even get me started about protecting Boston Celtic fans, they have had thousands of violent crimes committed against them.

Zona Zone
Mesa, AZ

I oppose it because it is the Federal government interfering with matters that are of purely state concern. The Supreme Court already struck down Congress's claim that the Commerce Clause is what gives them an enumerated power in this area in Lopez when the Supreme Court struck down the first Violence Against Women Act. This is the Federal government overstepping its bounds into an area where states have always acted and where the Founders clearly did not intend the Federal government to toil. This is an expansive abuse of Federal power.

Simple Man
Riverton, UT

@atl134..."If you don't want to be tried in tribal courts on rape charges, don't rape someone on tribal land."

Really? What about someone falsely accused? Do you really want to place that person's (or your) fate in the hands of a system, without recourse, that can mandate a conviction on someone who truly is innocent?

Voice ofReason

I absolutely despise this all-too-common leftist tactic for passing controversial legislation: create a bill with a title & main content that no one would oppose, then quietly slip in the real goal of passing some highly controversial law that virtually EVERYONE would oppose.

Like the 2013 Protection of Innocent Little Kittens Act from Decapitation of 2013. POlitical suicide to oppose. Never mind that line 457 of the bill has two sentences that give citizenship to little kittens.

Just because a law is called "Violence Against Women Act" does not - repeat, NOT - mean the entire law is a good idea. Slipping in extremely controversial and totally unrelated language giving fringe Native American secessionist activists their dream law is just cynical and dishonest. And this should really be a Violence Against Human Beings Act...but that would neuter the radical feminist goal of writing into law their view that all violence against women is the result of eeeeevil men lording it over women.

American Fork, UT

You can draw a lot of conclusions from the photo.

Salt Lake City, UT

@Counter Intelligence
"I am tolerant and anyone who disagrees is a rapist".

Not at all. I merely suggested that he's arguing on behalf of rapists, not that he is one, and I wouldn't use that claim if this was something that didn't have to do with a law relating to women who are victims of sexual abuse/assault.

"Tribal Courts do not have all the same constitutional protections as federal courts."

Then maybe they shouldn't commit crimes on tribal lands. There are actual cases where men will bring women into tribal lands just to sexually assault them. Native American women have the highest rates of being victims of sexual abuse (3 in 5).

"Senate Democrats deliberately politicized it "

Trying to help Native American women = politicization? I would've thought it was basic human decency.

@Simple Man
"Do you really want to place that person's (or your) fate in the hands of a system, without recourse, that can mandate a conviction on someone who truly is innocent?"

So you believe that if a Russian citizen rapes an American in Seattle or an American citizen rapes a Russian in Moscow both should be tried in the US?

Oceanside, CA

Re: Hutterite

Amen to that. A Who's Who of conservative wacko's.

salt lake, UT

Actually it is factually wrong to claim people would not have all their constitutional rights in a tribal courts. The laws are very clear that they do retain all their same rights.

San Diego, CA

-These republicans could not do any worse. They have already forgotten why Romney lost and once more are going after minorities.

-"Tribal Courts do not have all the same constitutional protections as federal courts." Simply isn't true. US v. Nice (1916) disproves that. One can also appeal a Tribal court to the corresponding circuit court.

Kirk R Graves
West Jordan, UT

There is quite a difference between Native American lands and a sovereign foreign nation. Let me enumerate them.
1. I can tell when I cross into another country. (Checkpoints, ports of entry, VISAs, etc..)
2. If I run into problems in a foreign country I can always call the US embassy.
3. Diplomatic relations with foreign nations can be a powerful tool in protecting a U.S. Citizen.

When all this is in place, then I would be a little more comfortable giving up my constitutional rights when visiting.
And, @Atl, the issue is not about committing a crime while on tribal lands, but about being accused of committing a crime while on tribal lands. Remember that whole "Innocent until proven guilty" thing?

one old man
Ogden, UT

Women in Utah just need to remember this until the next two elections when they will have a chance to get rid of Orrin and Lee.

Kirk R Graves
West Jordan, UT

To claim that the left are the only ones pulling this kind of trick is disingenuous. As despicable as it is, both parties do it. Then, to top it off, after they have clogged it up with a bunch of stuff we wouldn't normally approve of, they throw their personal pet pork in the mix. SOP for congress.

Yakima, WA

Thanks Voice of Reason, you've hit the nail on the head.

Alt134 - If a person is residing on reservation land, then they have chosen to abide by the native laws, otherwise state/federal jurisdiction should be applied. I've been in too many places where you could be on reservation land and not know it. There is not always a defined marking or signage. If there is a obvious frequent offense on reservation land, perhaps it might be an option for the state/federal judge to defer to the tribal courts. However, with that would come a "two way street", which would mean the tribe would do likewise. Neither group I suspect would go for it.

Rape is a very serious issue, but if controversial laws are put in place more pain would be generated then justice served. Victims of this crime just want justice, not to ride the judicial roller-coaster. Otherwise they just want to bury their pain and get on with their lives, leaving the perpetrator free to commit again. We need solid and straight forward laws, not political pay back.

Sacramento, CA

Some of you are talking about this as if assault and rape and violence in this place vs. that place and the more convenient crime scene for the perpetrator are the equivalent to the discussion about dinner and appetizer and dessert in this restaurant vs. that diner, and which is more convenient for the person taking the initiative. I was not aware that there was a discussion of such an insane notion going on. We do all agree, do we not, that these are crimes? I don't believe that women, as a gender, would be specified if the primary victims were not women vs. men; while certainly men are also victimized, no doubt women are a large majority of the victims. It shouldn't take a lot of common sense to figure out why. I could go into it. Or make it easy on yourself and do some people-watching and see who looks more likely to be violent to whom. Yes, looks can be deceiving but you get the idea, it's not all so far off the mark.

Ogden, UT

The DNews' unquestioning position of support to the right wing element in our society is pathetic! Hatch and Lee are absolutely out of touch with the needs of women, the underprivileged and the disadvantaged in the state of Utah.

It's incredible how unsympathetic all three (DNews, Hatch and Lee) are to important issues.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments