(incomplete)

Introduction:

• We've heard horror stories about female circumcision in third world countries. This is true, and its terrible. Worse, is the fact that the US government doesn't accept fear of sexual mutilation of a grounds for granting refuge to the US. This is a horrible unjustified procedure, which is a fundamental violation of human rights, and the greatest exertion of sexism and tyranny that is possible.

  Yet, what is commonly ignored is that here in the US, our own sexual mutilation massacre is occuring. For some reason, many argue that "female circumcision is a human rights violation" but ignore the fact that so is male circumcision. Both are, in short, forms of sexual mutilation. The perpetuation of male circumcision in the US is most likely the result of paranoid Christian views shunning masturbation. As has been proven by previously uncircumcised men who have been circumcised, circumcision decreases sexual pleasure and sensitivity for men. All men who have been circumcised report decreases in sensitivity. Thus, male circumcision is a form of sexual mutilation, which diminishes sexual pleasure and is painful, just as is female circumcision.

  Some may argue that because the baby doesn't remember being circumcised, its ok. This is a red herring. A baby also wouldn't remember a doctor masturbating on top of it -- yet this is a criminal action. A woman passed out drunk doesn't remember if she's raped, but yet that's illegal too. Simply because the victim will not remember the crime against him or her does not mean that that crime is acceptable.

  Others may argue that this is a religious issue (i.e., part of the Jewish religion) and that it is a choice for parents to make. While we have freedom of religion in this country, that freedom does not grant one the right to violate other's rights. Freedom of religion does not give me the right to use you as a human sacrafice. Freedom of religion also should not give parents the right to violate their children's rights -- performing a painful medical procedure on them without their consent. This is a life-altering decision which parents make, one which will affect their children for the rest of their lives, which their children had no control over and may subsequently wish had not been performed on them.

  No studies have shown that circumcised penises are cleaner than uncircumcised ones, of offer any health benefits on average.

  This entire foreskin issue is really just one giant example of the fallacy of ad populum, the fallacy is/ought, and the fallacy ad verecundum. Just because something is popular, is the current status, and has been so for a while, does not make it right.

  What if parents were removing the toe-nails and finger-nails from their born infants? Or using electrolysis to permanently remove the hair on their head? Or having their eye-lashes ripped off? Or their eyelids surgically removed? All of these actions would be regarded as abhorrent, yet for some reason cutting off the foreskin on a baby's penis without anesthetic is somehow considered OK.

  This is really a case of the "parents rights" non-sense, which I'm sick of hearing. Parents don't have rights over their children. Children are not property to be modified, reshaped, and surgically altered as pleases their parents. Children have rights, and in some cases that means the right to be protected against the harmful actions of their parents. Parents are there to support, guide, and raise their children, not force life-altering bodily changes on them against their consent. Parents are there to protect the rights of their children not to violate the rights of their children.

Fact Summary:

• In Rancho Bernardo High School (San Diego), at the previous year's MORP, a girl took off her thong and exposed herself while phreak dancing. Phreak dancing is a sexually explicit type of dance where a girl positions herself affront a guy and usually bumps and gyrates her ass into his crotch.

  At the next year's MORP, Rita Wilson -- a Vice Principal at RBHS -- decided to check to make sure guys were wearing underwear and girls weren't wearing thongs and had "protective underwear" on. She asked girls coming into the dance if they had thong underwear on and if they had bras on. If they said no, she made them lift their skirts/dresses or pull down their shirts to prove it. On one occasion, she forcibly pulled down a girl's tube-top shirt and pulled up her skirt.

  Ms. Wilson claims she modestly lifted skirts from the side and only to several girls. However, the students say she did this to around a hundred girls, and lifted their dresses/skirts up from the front over their heads. Wilson was aided by Natalie Johnson, a counsellor. Three employees and two police officers at the dance reported being too intimidated to confront Wilson; one employee who did confront her backed down when she became argumentative.

  Students told their parents about the incident, which angered them. Many parents -- angered by the privacy-violation and humiliation their children were subjected to -- mandated Wilson be fired. Some, seeing her actions as sexual assault, wanted her fired and prosecuted. Mrs. Wilson defended her actions, saying she was trying to protect the kids from exposure and possible assault. Led by Michael Ball, 35 teachers at RBHS supported Wilson. Wilson issued an apology for any distress she caused students, but did not apologize for her actions, nor admit they were wrong.

  The school board launched an investigation, during which Wilson was suspended. They interviewed various school officials and the two police officers present at the dance. They also interviewed several students who were violated, as well as several onlookers. They concluded that Wilson used "extremely poor judgement," violating state law and school district policy, which prohibits her from "removing or rearranging [a student's] clothing for a visual inspection of underclothing, breasts, buttocks, or genitalia." They were less severe with Johnson, as she she was following Wilson's orders, but still said she used poor judgement.

  The school board then decided Wilson's punishment. Only 19 people were allowed to address the board, and of those 8 spoke out against Ms. Wilson. Of thos 19 only one, Ashley Wydra, was a girl who was at the dance. She accused Wilson of lying about how many girls were subjected to the thong-check, saying Wilson checked around a hundred students.

  The board voted unanimously to demote Wilson to a teaching position, not fire her. Due to tenure -- which guarantees Wilson a teaching position until retirement -- the school district was fearful to fire her, for the cost of a wrongful termination suit, even though she violated the district's search and seizure policy, as well as state law. Disappointed parents said they may pursue legal action to have Ms. Wilson fired and possibly criminal action.
  

Confirmed Victims:

• Rebecca Teal
  Ms. Chappel
  Ashley Wydra
  Ms. Garvik
  Stephanie Stewart
  Ms. Stech
  Stephanie Olson
  others have refused to be named or have not stepped forward

Quotes:

• "Everyone is...appalled and devastated. They definitely crossed any line of decency." -- Kim Teal

  "I...saw...a line of people and...she [Wilson] was checking to see what the girls were wearing under their dresses...she was literally lifting up their skirts and embarrassing them in front of everyone else." -- Ms. Teal

  "I'm not taking anything off the table. I don't feel it's a good idea to stick her in charge of 25-plus students in any fashion. Teachers are the ones shaping our kids, and to put her in that position - that's not a demotion, that's a much more important position." -- Kim Teal

  "To me, that is sexual assault. You don't do that to anybody, but especially not to kids. These kids are depending on the administrators to protect them." -- Jim Teal

  "It was a violation of these kids' privacy, and very embarrassing for kids at that age" -- Cindy Chappell

  "I felt embarrassed because there were about 50 people standing around. I didn't think I had done anything wrong." -- Ms. Chappel

  "I can't believe you just lied to everyone. How can you live with yourself." -- Ashley Wydra to Wilson, in regards to Wilson lying about the number of students she violated

  "You stay away from my little sister." -- Ashly Wydra to Wilson

  "She needs to be fired. That's the only acceptable consequence. These people...need to be classified as sex offenders." -- Alane Garvik

  "I felt like they were really touching a private area. I didn't think they had a right to know that stuff." -- Ms. Garvik

  "We were in front of the entire class, school officials were around, and even two on-campus cops." -- Stephanie Steward

  "They just lifted the skirt over my head. I didn't know what was going on." -- Stephanie Olson

  "It plainly violates the privacy rights of girls and boys subjected to the searches" -- Jordan Budd, ACLU lawyer

  "It's really quite astounding that a school administrator would believe it to be appropriate to require every girl who attended a dance to partially disrobe in public on the off chance one might subsequently engage in misconduct." -- Jordan Budd, ACLU lawyer

  "I just thought, Ohmigod, what is she doing? This is totally out of line." -- Greg Bisesto, San Diego city police officer

Discussion

• One wonders what Wilson was thinking, and what one has to do to get fired now-a-days. Wilson violated the privacy rights of about a hundred students, sexually assault a few, and violated the CA Educational Code, yet she still hasn't been fired. Oh wait, I forgot: zero tolerance only applies to students.

  Lets take a look at the laws Ms. Wilson violated.

  1. Indecent Exposure. Ms. Wilson's actions violated California's Indecent Exposure laws. By coercing them through her position of authority to lift their skirts of pull down their shirts, Wilson caused the indecent exposure of many students. This constitutes multiple offenses of indecent exposure, and would constitute multiple convictions, meaning a felony conviction according to CA Penal Code 314.
  2. Battery. Ms. Wilson's actions violated California's Battery laws. On the occasion(s) where she forcibly lifted girls' skirts or pulled down their shirts, she is guilty of battery (CA Penal Code 242) on school grounds, punishable by a fine less than or equal to $2,000 and/or a jail-term less than or equal to 1 year [CA Penal Code 243.2. (a)(1)].
  3. Sexual Battery. In cases where Ms. Wilson's hands were touching the teenager's groins or breasts through their clothing (as must have happened when she pulled down one girl's tube-top), she was guilty of sexual battery, punishable by a fine of less than or equal to $2,000 and/or a jail-term less than or equal to 1 year [CA Penal Code 243.4 (a), (e), and (f)(1)].
  4. Illegal Search. As Wilson rearranged the clothing of students to permit a visual inspection of the underclothing, she conducted an illegal search, in violation of California's education code. [CA Educational Code 49050 (a)]. .

  So, by all accounts, Ms. Wilson should certainly be fired, as she has violated both the CA Educational and Penal Codes. Given the seriousness of the situation -- that she violated the rights of the student's whom she was supposed to protect -- she should also be in jail for at least 1 year, assuming all sentences are served concurrently. She certainly should not be anywhere near kids. The "punishment" given to her by the school board -- demoting her to a teaching position -- is in fact a punishment to the students, as it will put her in closer contact with them. She claims she was acting to "protect" the students and looking out for their best interests, preventing them from indecently exposing themselves and being sexually battered. This is absurd. You can't protect someone from indecent exposure and battery by forcing them to indecently expose themselves (via your authority position) and committing battery against them; that like preventing the mafia from murdering someone by murdering that person yourself. Furthermore, it is obvious that her actions had a detrimental, not positive, affect. Thus, her "ends justifies the means" argument falls further on its face.

  Wilson's also claims that she had no other way to stop "phreak" dancing and the kind of indecent exposure that went on the previous year. Firstly, you can't prevent indecent exposure by causing it. Secondly, she had other alternatives:

  1. Cancel the dance.
  2. Stop the dance if anyone phreaks.
  3. Split the dance up among several nights to make it more manageable.
  4. Stop the music or play country music if anyone freak dances or indecently exposes themselves. This has been proven to work. One DJ calmed down a high-school dance by playing the Barney theme song.
  5. Discipline those who freak dance, and remove them from the dance.
  6. Have the officer present at the dance arrest anyone who indecently exposes themselves.
  7. Any combination of the above and other legal methods which don't violate students' rights.

  Wilson had all of these options and more. It only took me a few seconds to come up with these. Wilson had months to figure out how to handle the dance, so she has no excuse. Yet, there are those who defend Wilson, using various absurd arguments. I will post the the defenses of Wilson's actions in italics and my responses in plain test.

  1. Maybe what she did was wrong, but she's a good person, so we shouldn't punish her. Absurd. We are not judging, nor are we capable of judging, whether or not Wilson is a "good person". What we are capable of judging is whether her individual acts in this matter were legal or illegal. A "good person" who commits illegal acts should still be punished, whether (s)he's a teacher, a businessman, a police officer, the Pope, or Mother Teresa. Also note that the people who make this argument -- those close to Wilson -- are the very people least capable of fairly judging her actions, as they are partial to Wilson.
  2. She was only doing the job that parents should have been doing. Parents should be grateful she was preventing their children from acting like wanton little sluts. Firstly, this is irrelevant. Whether or not parents should be happy is not the point: Wilson's actions are still illegal and wrong. Secondly, checking children's underclothing is the right of their parents, not anyone else. Simply because parents choose not to excercise that right does not give a stranger such as Wilson the right to do such. Thirdly, Wilson's actions did not in any way prevent promiscuous activity, nor exhibitionist activity, nor phreaking, nor indecent exposure, assault, or battery. Her actions were in fact all of these things.
  3. Wilson was doing the only thing she could to prevent a reoccurence of the previous year's indecent exposure. Again, this is absurd: you cannot prevent indecent exposure and battery by committing that very same act. Furthermore, this is wrongly implying that Wilson was in a catch-22: that had the obligation to protect students from indecent exposure and battery, but that the only way to do such was by this thong-check. As I've shown, that is clearly not true: Wilson had other options which would have been effective. Also note that the action Wilson chose in no way prevented anything: phreaking is just as easy with cover-all undewear as with thongs; cover-all underwear come off just as easily.
  4. If what she did was so illegal, how come she hasn't been fired and put in jail? If what OJ Simpson did was so illegal, how come he isn't in jail? This is an is/ought fallacy: "because Wilson isn't in jail now for her actions, she shouldn't be in jail for her actions." Not every crime is punished as it should be; however, that does not mean it is legal. If you think what Ms. Wilson did was legal, try doing it to a female police officer and see where it lands you -- in jail, that's where. Furthermore, the families of the victim's may very well sue the school to get her fired, and demand the DA prosecute her.

  As a closing remark, I'd like to say that Wilson is not the only one at fault here, though she is of the gravest fault. Johnson's actions were also inexecusable, and she should be facing the same consequences and jail-sentence that Wilson should be facing the same consequences: she was a counsellor and should have known better. Likewise, the police officers present were at fault: when they saw what was going on, they should have stopped Wilson and arrested her. The other teachers and school officials at the dance were also at fault: they should have stopped Wilson. Finally, the 35 teachers who support Ms. Wilson are at fault, as they're supporting actions which are illegal and violated the rights of students: neither Ms. Wilson, nor Ms. Johnson, nor any of the 35 teachers supporting them, should be anywhere near kids.

  In short, aside from their parents, it's none of anyone's business -- certainly not Wilson's -- what type of underclothing students are wearing. She had no right to violate their privacy as she did.

Links:

• Assistant Principal Placed on Leave for Alleged 'Thong Check'
  Criticism, Support Surround's Panty Check
  Girls made to show underwear at high school dance
  Thong-Wearing Teens Kicked Out Of Dance
  Poway district condemns thong search
  Improper Inspections? Principal Accused of Subjecting Girls to a Pre-Dance Thong Check
  School district releases report on thong inspection
  School Official Defends Dance Thong Check
  "Thong Lady" Stripped of Position
  Stripped of dignity
  Underwear incident leads to demotion
  Vice Principal Demoted Over Thong Check
  Vice principal on leave after thong check reports
  Vice Principal Suspended in Thong Flap

Miscellaneous

• Let the culprits know what you think! Here's the e-mail addresses of Ms. Wilson and Ms. Johnson, and their supporters, including Michael Ball and Tim Steigerwald. The list of Wilson supporters is obvioulsy not complete (there were 35 teachers who supported her). I'll be working on getting that complete list. supporters.
  • 
    Rita Wilson
    Natalie Johnson
    Michael Ball
    Tim Steigerwald

  IMPORTANT NOTICE: The San Diego County Office of Education DENIES permission to use our email addresses for SPAM, chain letters, or any other unsolicited purpose. To do so is illegal and steps will be taken to prosecute offenders. So please ask the appropriate San Diego RBHS official for persmission to e-mail these school officials with your opinion on their disgraceful action.

Fact-Summary:

• Christina Silvas sent her 5-year old kindergartener to Capital Christian school for $400/month. After her husband stopped paying his half of the bill, Silvas, a single full-time mother, was in a desperate financial situation: She did not have enough money to continue paying $400/month without working. If she worked, jobs offered insufficient money and required long hours, keeping her from her daughter. So she became a part-time stripper, alleviating her financial situation, allowing her to send her daughter to Capital Christian, support herself and her child, and be a full-time mother.

  Hearing this and receiving verification, the school notified Ms. Silvas that if she didn't quit stripping her daughter would be suspended. When she refused to quit, the school suspended her daughter and informed Silvas that her and her daughter could neither attend/visit the school or the church. Silvas received several offers of financial aid from outside the church. Silvas felt she had not violated the moral contract she signed when she put her daughter in the school, since she stripped while her daughter was not in her custody, and set an upstanding moral example for her daughter. She also said that God, seeing actions and motivations, knew she was stripping to be the best mother to her daughter.

  Eventually, they worked out a deal: Silvas' daughter could return to school for the remainder of the year, if Silvas temporarily quit her job; the school waived her fee for the last month. Silvas agreed to the terms, noting that she became a stripper for her daughter's benefit, and that she got out of it for the same reasons. Silvas, extremely disappointed by the school's decisions, characterizing their actions as un-christ-like, noting that the financial aid offers came from outside the church. Silvas looked for another church and school for her and her daughter to attend. She later posed in Playboy, securing her immediate financial future.

Notable Quotes by Christina Silvas:

• "My daughter is the one who goes to school there, not me and they're turning her away."

  "I'm not proud of what I'm doing right now. But I'm proud for the reason that I'm doing it, which is to prove the best life for my daughter that I possibly can."

  "My goal throughout all of this has been to do the best for my daughter that I possibly can."

  "Just as I decided to start dancing, I'm now deciding to take this pause for her benefit. I'm not doing this because I support the church's position."

  "I don't think the church's reaction was very Christ-like," Silvas said - noting that the offers of help she received "came from outside the church."

  "Before all of this happened I was extremely interested in posing I have the utmost respect for the entire company, and I believe posing for Playboy is the American dream for a woman."

  "Absolutely." [in reference to having seen fellow Church-members at the strip-club]

  "I think it's demeaning to have a day care raise your child while you're working." [her opinion regarding Pastor Cole's comment that "God thinks stripping is demeaning"]

  "I believe God sees our heart and looks at why we are doing what we are doing as opposed to solely our actions, and I believe that my actions were absolutely honorable. I was trying to provide for my daughter. I didn't have the luxury of looking for something else to do. It was very sudden that the financial responsibility of providing for my daughter fell onto my shoulders, and this was the first opportunity that seemed like it would help me accomplish my goals." [in reference to if she thinks God was satisfied with her sacrafice to strip for her daughter]

  "No." [my daughter will not return to the Capital Christian for first grade] "I was deeply disappointed with their actions throughout this entire situation."

  "It was an extremely positive experience. It helped me accomplish the goals that I think are important, which is spending time with my daughter and providing the best that I can for her." [in reference to whether or not she enjoyed dancing at the club]

Discussion & Conclusion:

• Let me start off by saying that I agree with the comments Ms. Silvas has made: the school and church definately acted un-Christ-like. Would the Christ spoken of in the Bible have punished a child for the actions of his or her mother? No. The Christ spoken of in the Bible would have went to the club and tipped the mother, and talked with her as a friend. Oh wait, the church only reads the parts of the Bible it wants to read. Forget about he who hasn't sinned throwing the first stone; forget about Jesus conversing and being friends with prostitutes, tax-collectors, and thieves. Also forget about Jesus helping those in need (note, the offers of financial support came from outside the church).

  Worse than merely suspending Ms. Silvas' daughter from the school, they also banned her and her mother from going to the church, while she was a stripper. The church is supposed to be open to everybody, epsecially children who are necessarily (due to their age) innocent. What exactly did they expect the girl to do, give her mother a spanking? Bad mommy, bad bad bad -- go to the corner! What this amounts to is punishing the child for what the church calls the sins of the mother, in the name of God. Interesting that the church has a monopoly on speaking for what the will of God is: apparently, commoners like Ms. Silvas and others can't interpret the Bible for themselves.

  It is closed-minded churches which have put shame into the naked body, and indeed shame into eroticism, not the God spoken of in the Bible. Obviosly, God thought that the naked human body was a good and beautiful thing, or else he wouldn't have made man (as well as every other living thing on this earth) naked. There is nothing shameful about the naked body -- it is a thing of beauty. Likewise with eroticism: a thing of beauty. Stripping and other erotic (or pornographic) arts are powerful artistic expressions, designed to arouse various feelings within people: desire, lust, passion, burning, etc. Why should that be looked at as having any less artistic merit than a tragedy, such as Shakespear's King Lear, or a deeply depressing novel, such as Orwell's 1984? An interesting quote that comes to mind: "There's no such thing as good or evil books. There's well-written books and poorly-written books." I believe that is applicable to Ms. Silvas' stripping situation.

  Quite frankly, there's nothing degrading or harmful about Ms. Silvas' actions. She did what she did to be able to spend the most time with her daughter, while financially supporting herself and her daughter (i.e., private school). Indeed, I would argue that what she's doing makes her a great mother: supporting her daughter both emotionally and financially...seems like the real-deal to me.

  And I say that the church should examine their own sins before condemning Ms. Silvas. Ms. Silvas' actions harmed no one, but in fact greatly benefitted her daughter (by allowing Silvas to spend more time with her daughter). The church will argue that her daughter will be hurt later on when she finds out her mother was a stripper, but I say that's non-sense: she will be glad her mother did what it took to support her both financially and emotionally; and, being raised by an enlightened person such as Ms. Silvas, she will not be open-minded. The church is the one at fault here, as their actions clearly harmed a 5-year old girl. And lets not forget about all the child-molesters that the church protects within: the priests who are "relocated" from one parish to another every time they're accused of child-molestation, so they can molest a whole new batch of children. Lets not forget about all the rapists, murderers, and child-molesters that the church holds in confidence, allowing them to get away with their crimes. "Look to the log in your eye before the splinter in your friends'" comes to mind. I'm not questioning the church and school's right to do what they did (they're private organizations, and can handle their affairs as they like); what I am doing, is questioning their decisions, and criticizing them for those decisions: they may have had the right to do what they did, but it was wrong.

  On the bright side, Ms. Silvas and her daughter have moved on. They are too good for that school and church, and Ms. Silvas has found a new church for herself and her daughter, as well as a new school for her daughter. They deserve better. Ms. Silvas has also posed for some beautifully artistic nudes (and an interview) in Playboy, giving her a financial safety-net to fall back on. Good for her!

Articles on Christina Silvas and her daughter:

• Christian School Boots Stripper's Kid
  Girl Expelled Over Stripper Mother
  Kingergartener's Stripper-Mom In Church-School Flap
  Playboy Pictures of Christina Silvas
  Anti-Strip School 'Disappointed' Over Mum's Playboy Pose
  School: Stop Stripping Or Your Daughter's Expelled -- interview iwth Silvas and Cole on CNN
  Stripped Of Her Faith -- Playboy Article on Silvas, include exclusive interview
  The Stripper And The Christian School
  Stripper's Child Expelled From Christian School

Contacts:

• Let them know what you think!

  Click here to send your opinion to the Capital Christian Center, or send an e-mail to ccc@capchrist.org.

Note: I do not believe in God, Christianity, or any other religion. I think all religions are equally absurd and unlikely, filled with hocus-pocus. This is my honest belief. However, because I greatly respect Christina Silvas for the sacrafices she has made for her daughter -- and because I know she is a Christian -- I have chosen to capitalize the word God in this journal entry. Also note that facts or quotes are in Type, headers in bold, and my personal comments in plain text.

Introduction:

• Thought the Salem Witch trials were over? Guess again. Brandi Blackbear, a student at Oklahoma's Union Intermediate High School, was accused of casting a hex on her teacher and thus suspended for 15 days. The ACLU has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Blackbear, who stands accused of "hexing" a teacher, which can be found here. Fearsmag and ABCnews have also written articles on this Oklahoma witch-hunt. Let me try to briefly summarize. I'll put the summaries in bold, the facts in type, and my comments in plain text.

Summary:

1. Right to privacy violated, illegal search & seizure performed by Principal Ojala and Counselor Miller. Because of rumors that Blackbear had written a violent story, Principal Ojala and Counselor Miller performed a locker search, under guise of trying to find a gun. Unable to find a weapon, Ojala and Miller stole Blackbear's private items and read her stories, eventually finding the violent story. Note, this is an unconstitutional violation of Blackbear's right to privacy and an illegal search and seizure. Also note that they further violated her privacy by reading her stories, which she had kept private.
2. Due process denied in unfair and non-impartial kangeroo-court. Concluding that Blackbear was going to commit a violent incident, Ojala and Miller suspended Blackbear, held a kangeroo court in which she was denied due process and judged by those who could neither be fair nor impartial, and suspended for 19 days. Note firstly that there was no grounds on which to question or interrogate Blackbear, certainly none on which to suspend her. It was irrational and unfounded to assume she would commit a violent act. The "hearing" she was given denied her every conceivable right that could have been denied. A similar incident happened at my high school, Rush Henrietta Senior High, after Columbine. The Principal instituted an absurd policy banning trench-coats, and a student who had worn a trench-coat for years came in the next day wearing a trench-coat, as he'd always done. The Principal suspended him for wearing a trench-coat, violatiing his constitutional rights to freedom of expression & speech.
3. Blackbear's social and academic status suffer because of officials' actions. Because of the schools' actions, Blackbear became a social outcast among students, the subject of ridicule and embarassment. Due to her suspension, she fell far behind in mathematics. Thanks to the schools' illegal and unconstitutional actions, Blackbear became a social outcast, subject toe the ridicule of her peers. Because of the suspension, she fell behind in mathematics; and as one topic in mathematics necessarily builds on the previous one, she suffered greatly in that area.
4. Blackbear's rights to freedom of thought, speech, and religion were then violated in 9th grade Upon entering 9th grade, Blackbear took an interest in the Wiccan religion, and pursued independent studies of it. Thus, she was ridiculed and insulted by fellow students. It is an unfortuante but sad truth that teenagers -- like everyone else -- are intolerant of differing views. I personally find it rather amusing that those who believe in some magical invisible man in the sky -- who "loves them" but will subject them to an eternity of hell if they don't do XYZ -- feel that their beliefs are superior to those of someone who believes in a different invisible man and woman in the sky. All religions are equally stupid, illogical, and non-sensical, and no one has any standing to claim some higher truth over any other, none-the-less to ridicule any other.
5. Accused of being a witch, casting a hex on teacher. Hearing that Blackbear was interested in Wicca, Bushyhead and Franklin -- the Assistant Principal and counselor for the Union Intermediate High School, respectively -- accused Blackbear of casting a hex on Mr. Kemp, a teacher who had inexplicably fallen ill and had been hospitalized. They repeatedly accused her of such until, tired and exhausted, she stopped denying it. Firstly, they had no business accusing her of causing this teacher's illness: teenagers do not need to be accused of this kind of bullshit. Secondly, anyone dumb enough to believe in witches, hexes, and spells should not be in any official position at a school -- they shouldn't have even graduated from high school. Only in the Bible-Belt state of Oklahoma could principals and teachers be dumb enough to actually believe in witch-craft. Apparently, they thought The Blairwitch Project was a biography, and that The Craft was based off of real-life. Next, they'll be burning witches at the stake.
6. Right to freedom of thought, speech, and religion violated. Having accused Blackbear of being a witch and casting a hex on Mr. Kemp, Bushyheead and Franklin told her that she could not wear any paraphernalia related to Wicca. Deeming her a threat, Bushyead and Franklin suspended Blackbear for 15 days for causing a disruption in the educational process, 10 of which were spent supervised in school. Apparently, Bushyhead and Franklin were worried about Blackbear casting a hex on them too, thus made sure she was supervised. Note that they obviously violated her rights to freedom of speech, thought, religion, and expression. Furthermore, her suspension under grounds of "casting a hex" was completely unconstitutional, illegal, and bogus.
7. The school's absurd allegations have caused emotional and physical harm to Blackbear. The school's claims caused and continue to cause Blackbear ridiculue and humiliation from her peers. The Principal's conduct has caused her to become an outcast. She does not feel comfortable. The school has caused her great pain, suffering, anguish, and has prevented her from obtaining a quality education. Nothing gets a zealous Christian's blood flowing better than crucifying a young woman for being a witch. Maybe they should tie a stone around her and throw her in the lake; if she doesn't drown, they can then burn her alive on a crucafix.

Conclusion & Suggestions:

• The ACLU has made the following recommendations to the court, and I have suggested some additions. I don't think the ACLU goes far enough.
  1. Declare that the Defendants' actions violate the US Constitution.
  2. Enjoin Defendants, its employees, and agents from prohibiting Blackbear from wearing any religious item.
  3. Award Blackbear her costs, reasonable attorney fees, and other relief the Court deems appropriate.

  I suggest the following additions:

  1. Mandate that all employees of the school involved in violating Blackbear's rights be fired and jailed for: (1)Illegally trespassing on Blackbear's property (her locker); (2) Illegally confiscating Blackbear's property from her (tort); (3) Illegally stealing Blackbear's property (as it has yet to be returned); (3) Destroying Blackbear's property, as they have destroyed many of her works.
  2. Mandate that the school expunge any suspension from Blackbear's record, and mandate that they expunge all grades from Blackbear's record that she obtained while affected by this. She should be allowed to expunge any grades she deems unacceptably low, and re-take the courses, in her own time and at the expense of those who violated her rights.
  3. Mandate that the school and any officials involved make a public apology to Blackbear, and that the new principal of the school give a lecture on tolerance.
  4. Mandate that the school vouch for Blackbear when she applies for college, and explain the unusual circumstances which may explain any mediocre grades she received. If Blackbear has trouble getting into an acceptable college, the school is to be held responsible, and act on her behalf with the colleges.

  All I can say is that its amazing that this level of stupidity persists, even in the modern era. It really makes you question the system when Principals are dumber than the average X-Files conspiracy junky. How can people so ignorant and stupid be instituted as principals, counselors, and teachers? The habitual and unremorseful violation of Ms. Blackbear's rights is also disturbing. Teenagers rights do not magically vanish the minute they walk into a school.

Please post your opinions on this matter, be they criticisms of my position or argument, or arguments of your own.

Introduction:

• I know that prostitution should be legal. It is a very simple issue: the actual act, a prostitute and her customer agreeing on an exchange of money for sex, violates no one's rights, and does not directly or demonstrateably necessarily harm anyone else. Thus, it should be legal. However, some people do not seem to have clarity on the issue, and want to bring in lots of personal opinions and hogwash about how prostitution promote drug-use, violence, STDs, etc. In fact, it is anti-prostitution laws which promote all of these things. I hope that these statistics -- taken from the Prostitutes Education Network -- and my interpretation of them can show that. For clarity, summaries of each point will be in bold, facts paraphrased from the website will be in type, and my personal comments will be in plain text.

Data and Interpretation:

• Anti-prostitution laws don't work, and thus should be abolished. Arrest figures range over 100,000, and over 1 million people in the US have worked as prostitutes, or about 0.5% of the US. Anti-prostitution laws don't work, and thus should be abolished. The frequency of prostitution is not affected by anti-prostitution laws: they mereley drive prostitution underground, creating a much more dangerous situation for prostitutes, their customers, and society.

  Prostitution is not a women-only issue. 77.8% of arrests are women, 22.2% men. In larger cities, 20-30% of prostitutes are male. The feminist arguments against prostitution claiming that prostitution is "violence against women" need to be re-examined, considering that a considerable percentage of prostitutes are men. It is even inappropriate to call "prostitution violence against prostitutes," as it is not prostitution itself which is violent. It is the circumstances around prostitution -- all of them caused, perpetuated, and encouraged by the illegalization and stigmitization of prostitution -- which are violent.

  The enforcement of anti-prostitution laws is inequitable, and discriminate against prostitutes. Prostitutes account for 90% of the arrests, their clients for only 10%. The enforcement of anti-prostitution laws is predjudiced against prostitutes, and in fact punishes and violates those that the supporters of anti-prostitution laws (some feminists and Conservatives) claim anti-prostitution laws protect. Were the law equitable, 50% of those arrested under anti-prostitution laws would be the clients. But cops aren't interested in pursuing the clients: clients often have money, and can defend themselves. Also, its alot easier to rape, assault, abuse, and otherwise violate the rights of a prostitute.

  The enforcement of anti-prostitution laws further victimize the most victimized prostitutes. 85-90% of those arrested are street prostitutues, who account for 20% of prostitutes. As the statistics show, street-prostitutes are most likely to be subject to violence, abuse, and drug-use. The enforcement of anti-prostitution laws further victimizes these most-victimized and violated of prostitutes.

  The enforcement of anti-prostitution laws is racist. Despite accounting for the minority of prostitutes, non-caucasians account for the vast majority of prostitutes sentenced to jail. Anti-prostitution laws act as a vehicle for racism, as this statistic indicates.

  Drug-abuse is variable, and most common among street-prostitutes. Drug abuse ranges from 0-84%, depending on the population, and is most common among street-prostitutes, 50% of whom are drug-users. As was stated, drug-use is variable depending on the population, just like among any other group. The highest incidences of drug-use are among street-prostitutes, probably because they are subject to the most frequent contact with nefarious drug-dealers, and because they are the most likely to work for a pimp who controls them by rationing drugs to them. This is perpetuated and encouraged by anti-prostitution laws. Anti-prostitution laws force more prostitutes roam the streets, searching for clientelle (as they can't advertise from a brothel), and also discourage prostitutes from working in a house as that is a fixed and easy target for police-raids. Legalizing prostitution would ameliorate this situation, resulting in lower incidences of drug abuse.

  Prostitutes are not a major source of STD-spread. Only 3-5% of STDs are prostitution-related, compared to 30-35% which is teen-related. Despite the bunk propogated by zealous anti-prostitution advocates, prostitutes are not a major source of STD-spread, and (indeed) this suggests that they are not particularly vulnerable to STDs. This is probably because prostitutes are highly aware of safe-sex, as it is a necessity in their business, and always use condoms and other devices to make sex safer. If only the Christian Coalition nutcases would allow our teenagers to be educated just as well in contraceptives and safe sex.

  Anti-prostitution laws and their enforcement tolerate, endorse, and perpetuate violence against and violation of prostitutes. Clients account for 60% of the abuse against street-prostitutes, police for 20%, and partners for 20%. One study found that 80% of prostitutes have been sexually assaulted, some raped as many as 8-10 times/yea or more. Only 7% seek help, and only 4% report it to the police. Prostitutes are unlikely to report violent crimes committed against them and also unlikely to seek help. Prostitutes know that they will be arrested for prostitution if they report crimes against them; know that neither the cops, prosecutors, judges, juries, nor even their own lawyers will believe them, thus don't report crimes against them. Our anti-prostitution laws -- which both perpetuate and are perpetuated by social stigma against prostitution -- are responsible for the acceptance of crimes committed against prostitutes and the devaluation of prostitutes as persons. Because clients, cops, and partners know this, they feel safe in stealing from, assaulting, sexaully assaulting, torturing, raping, and even killing prostitutes. Thanks to anti-prostitution laws, there is no crime safer in the US than a crime committed against a prostitute. As the legal system, cops, prosecutors, judges, jurrors, and society at large effectively regards prostitutes as non-persons -- less than slaves -- any crime against a prostitute is almost certainly ignored, tolerated, and even encouraged. This devaluation of prostitutes as non-persons -- analagous to the Proles in Orwell's 1984 -- is encouraged and promoted by anti-prostitution laws.

  Anti-prostitution laws and their enforcement further violates those already violated. 35-85% of prositutes are survivors of childhood incidences of sexual assault/molesation by their relatives (forced incest) or others. As this statistic indicates, most prostitutes are the survivors of childhood incest, molestation, and/or sexual assault. Our legal system -- and anti-prostitution laws in particular -- re-victimize prostitutes by imprisoning them and encouraging violence against them. Our legal system, the politicians who support anti-prostitution laws, and society at large are just as responsible for the victimization and rights-violation of prostitutes as are their parents who raped them. This re-victimization can be alleviated by abolishing anti-prostitution laws, thus not imprisoning prostitutes, and not encouraging crimes against them.

  House-prostitutes have good self-esteem. 97% of house-prostitutes like themselves more after than before becoming prostitutes. The statistics propogated by so-called feminists groups "concerned about prostitutes" indicating that all prostitutes have poor self-esteem are incorrect. Most house (as opposed to street) prostitutes have a better self-perception of themselves after becoming prostitutes. This again shows why we should legalize prostitution (and allow brothels), as it would encourage house-prostitution over street-prostitution.

  Prostitutes are no more likely to entertain suicidal thoughts than other women. 59% of prostitutes have thought of committing suicide, compared to 61% of non-prostitutes. This suggests that prostitutes are no more suicidal than non-prostitutes, debunking the theories put forth by some feminists.

  The enforcement of anti-prostitution laws necessarily violates prostitutes' rights. All arrests of prostitutes involve intrapment, invasion of privacy, and/or the use of discriminatory laws/tactics. Yet more violations of prostitutes' rights by the cops and our legal system. Because prostitutes are fearful of the police, and unlikely to get good legal advice, they will often plea guilty, not knowing that the evidence procured against them was inadmissable. Often, they will be pressured into such by cops, who will deny them their lawyers or deceptively suggest that contacting lawyers implies guilt, and using other strong-arm tactics to prevent prostitutes from getting adequate legal representation and knowing their rights.

  Anti-prostitution laws are unduely expensive, and should thus be abolished: that money should be spent pursuing those who commit crimes against prostitutes. It costs $2,000/case to arrest, court, and incarcerate a prostitute. Cities spend from $1 million to $23 million dollars, for an average of $7.5 million dollars, on prostitution-control. Despite the expenses made trying to prevent prostitution, it hasn't been prevented, but only driven underground to places where prostitutes are in the greatest danger of having their rights violated by pimps, clients, and cops. Instead of spending an average of $7.5 million trying to prevent prostitution and arresting prostitutes, cities should spend that money preventing crimes/rights-violations against prostitutes, and pursuing/punishing those who commit crimes against prostitutes and/or violate their rights.

  To make things clearer, there is an inverse relationship between the number of prostitutes prosecuted/jailed and the number of rapists brought up on charges. It costs $2,000 total to charge, prosecute, and jail a prostitute. It costs $500 dollars for the police to send a rape-kit to a lab for analysis. In real-life, thousands of rape-kits go unanalyzed because the PD can't afford the $500 fee for analysis. That means that for every prostitute that's prosecuted, there are four rapists that get away with rape. What this says is that our politicians care more about jailing prostitutes -- who don't necessarily, by virtue of their profession, harm anyone -- than about jailing violent and dangerous rapists, who will continue to rape. I think it's pretty obvious here that the intent of any politicians who support anti-prostitution laws is to promote rape.

Discussion & Conclusion:

• I hope that these statistics have convincingly made my point. Anti-prostitution laws serve only to further victimize prostitutes; encouraging, tolerating, excusing, and allowing for violence, crimes, and rights-violations against prostitutes. Anti-prostitution laws make the criminal feel safe in committing crimes against a prostitute. Had Jack The Ripper been killing noble British Women, he would have undoubtedly been caught, but because he was killing prostitutes (considered as non-persons) he was not. Anti-prostitution laws also encourage street prostitution, a form of prostitution in which the prostitutes are more vulnerable to crime and violation, and more exposed to drug-dealers and pimps who seek to take advantage of them. Furthermore, anti-prostitution laws encourage the social stigma associate with prostitutes. They enforce the unacceptable view among society at large that prostitutes are beneath them -- sub-humans, non-persons, proles. The right of a (wo)man to prostitute his or her body needs to be respected as a natural right, consequent of their natural right to control their own body. Abolishing laws denying that prostitutes have the right to control their body in the form of prostituting it is the first step to legitimize the profession of prostitute, and change societal views, such that the prostitute is viewed as a hard-working person just like the rest of us. The money spent violating the rights of prostitutes should be spent pursuing those who commit crimes against prostitutes.

  Furthermore, a social revolution in how society views prostitutes and other sex-workers (such as strippers or actors in pornography films) needs to be initiated. Prostitution needs to be seen as a legitimate professional choice, and prostitutes need the rights that all other professionals have. What rights and priviledges they have is not particularly important, so long as they're treated the same as other professionals.

  I will not go into extensive details here as to how we legalize prostitution, but simply say that I agree (almost) completely with the World Charter for Prostitutes' Rights. Here are some interesting sites regarding prostitutes' rights:

  • CSIS Rights Groups
    Prostitutes' Education Network Bookstore in association with Amazon.com
    Prostitutes' Education Network
    BlackStockings
    Alysabeth's Feminist Stripper Site -- enlightened views by a very intelligent woman on sex-work.

Responses to Critiques:

• I will post these in a C (critique), R (response) format.

  C: Would you want your daughter to become a prostitute?
  R: I want my daughter to become whatever will make her the happiest; however, people don't always get their dream careers. As with other professions, in prostitution some are happy, some not. Consider the underlying assumption of this question: that any field we don't want our children to go into should be criminalized. The question to ask is, does this profession necessarily violate the rights of others? Also consider if your daughter does become a prostitute. Under the current system, individuals can commit violent crimes against her with little fear of consequence; thus, she will be at grave risk. If prostitution was legal and legitimized, violent crimes against her would be punished and discouraged.

Please post your opinions on this matter, be they criticisms of my position or argument, or arguments of your own.