The question of whether or not to allow gay marriage in the United States really comes down to whether or not the Supreme Court justices believed it was a right protected by the Constitution. It’s a valid question, because Constitutional rights vary depending on the way the wind blows that day, warm and fragrant or downright menacing. The Constitution is the true double-edged sword, with half the justices trying to be mind readers of the 1787 variety and the others trying to determine how an old piece of writing applies to today’s society. Lest you think the mind reading element is insane, consider that the courts are influenced by all manners of campaign contributions, campaign contributions, financial sponsors, and have I mentioned campaign contributions? So, the “conservative” view holds with the idea that society shouldn’t shape our Constitution, because all else is chaos. The more “liberal” justices call “conservatives” the equivalent of an ostrich with its head buried in the sand and feel that we can’t ignore society’s changes. Oh, that there were a 3rd option whereby the Supreme Court actually recognized that it literally plays with peoples’ lives as though they are models in the sand.
The majority opinion ruled that gay marriage is a fundamental right, and that it is granted by the Constitution:
But Justice Kennedy rejected that idea. “It is of no moment whether advocates of same-sex marriage now enjoy or lack momentum in the democratic process,” he wrote. “The issue before the court here is the legal question whether the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.”
Later in the opinion, Justice Kennedy answered the question. “The Constitution,” he wrote, “grants them that right.”
There is not much support for why this is a fundamental right in the media portrayals, but the opposition is less compelling, ludicrous even.
“The court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs,” he wrote. “Just who do we think we are?”
You know you have a losing argument when Chief Justice Roberts has to rely on Kalahari Bushmen to try to make his point. Kalahari Bushmen who make poison arrows from crushed insects to survive are now setting policy for the United States. I can not believe that was brought up in a court. Han Chinese? Those misogynists who bound little girls’ feet to kill the tissue and cripple them into male concepts of sexual attraction now set policy in the United States? Please, let’s not get too insulting here, but then Roberts has no choice, it’s in his genetic code, misogyny, it appears, bigotry, I think. Aztecs? Middle Americans who also sacrificed human lives are now poster children for our laws? For real? Delusional much Roberts?
Kennedy made the most compelling arguments, and it was his decision on which the vote was proffered and passed.
Justice Kennedy was the author of all three of the Supreme Court’s previous gay rights landmarks. The latest decision came exactly two years after his majority opinion in United States v. Windsor, which struck down a federal law denying benefits to married same-sex couples, and exactly 12 years after his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime.
“The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times,” he wrote on Friday. “The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”
“The nature of injustice…is that we may not always see it…” And that is the crux of the issue. Then how could any forward-thinking justice move for anything but sentient decisions? Supporting justice then is a means of seeing injustice, and to do otherwise is to be blind to injustice. Excellent strategy there, Kennedy.
Of course, if we were to live in Robert’s warped view, we would still be living according to laws of human sacrifice, torturing children with foot binding and using poison arrows. A Constitution that responds to society is much more appealing.
Interrupt the President in his house, and you get thrown out.
Obama gives him a warning, and then has him removed. Worth a watch. I can’t hear what the “heckler” says, but Obama says that if you are eating the food and drinking the booze, best not to heckle.
Distractingly Sexy: Scientists That Happen To Be Women Just Can’t Help It–Tim Hunt Wins the Asshole of the Week Award
Just when you think you can do your own thing, have found your niche and are getting shit done, someone comes along to call you sexy. And that’s a bad thing, because your sexiness is so distracting that the men in your lab can’t function. The solution: just don’t have women around. One male scientist calls it “having trouble with girls,” the grossest under representation of a scientific fact this year, and says that women in science are “distractingly sexy.” This radical statement made such a controversial stir that NPR reported on it:
A Nobel-winning biochemist’s announcement that he has “trouble with girls” in labs because they either cause romantic sparks or start crying when criticized ignited wide condemnation…
If you’re catching up, British scientist Tim Hunt, 72, made the remarks at an international conference in South Korea, where he reportedly said, “You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry.” On Wednesday, Hunt apologized — to an extent — and resigned his honorary professorship at University College London.
Strangely enough Tim Hunt’s view of falling in love with women then leads directly to criticism of them, at which point women cry? Hunt’s characterization of his “trouble with girls,” doesn’t begin to cover his misogyny. What a better way to express affection than to be mean to a woman? And let’s not even get into the point that demonstrating affection to women you work with because you “fall in love with them” is not an appropriate response to a professional work situation. Tim Hunt must have taken notes from the Lolita scientific manual, whereby all women, even young girls, are calculating their lust-inducing potential to lure unwary men to their doom, or to justify some pedophilic-type leanings. You choose.
Women, unsurprisingly, have taken umbrage with this characterization and have begun tweeting photos of themselves with the caption #distractingly sexy
Tim Hunt is married. He also called himself a “chauvinistic monster,” and he also describes scientists as “women scientists.” In short, he is a contradiction of terms. Perhaps he was trying to be funny, but it’s not funny to say that women are responsible for men’s feelings. The second part of Tim Hunt’s speech was reported to be of a different tone according to a story in The Daily Mail.UK:
According to The Times, a report of the event by a European Commission official who was at the lunch was suppressed by the commission.
He wrote: ‘This is the transcript of Sir Tim Hunt’s speech, or rather a toast, as precise as I can recall it: ‘It’s strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls?’
According to the official, Sir Tim immediately said after: ‘Now seriously, I’m impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me.’
The second part of the speech doesn’t sound nearly as obnoxious, which just goes to show that Tim Hunt touched a nerve, and that’s a depiction that people are quick to jump on. The bottom line is: you don’t act like something is a joke when it’s used to abuse women and prevent them from achieving their career goals. Abuse of women isn’t funny. Perhaps Tim Hunt really was trying to make a point about the chauvinism in his field, but misogyny isn’t a joking matter. At his age, and with is credentials, he should know what is funny and what is not. Apparently other academics are making light, as well:
Since his resignation, Sir Tim Hunt has received strong support from the academic community – with eight fellow Nobel laureates coming backing him.
Professor Richard Dawkins, 74, said the scientist had been victim of ‘baying witch-hunt’.
While Cambridge academic Mary Beard said she would ‘like to smack his bottom’ and ‘give him a piece of my mind’ – but that she wouldn’t she ‘wouldn’t drum him out of the academic town’.
Sir Tim’s wife, Professor Mary Collins has since claimed he had little choice but to resign.
She said that while her husband was flying home from the conference, a senior figure at UCL phoned her to say: ‘Tim had to resign immediately or be sacked’.
There are now over 2,000 signatures on an online petition to reinstate him to his post at UCL.
Meanwhile, members of the university’s governing council are mounting a potential rebellion over the university’s handling of the affair – with it now being claimed that talks next month could lead to Sir Tim being reinstated.
Why not send a message that joking about sexual harassment at work isn’t funny and can lead to your resignation? Oh, well because there are plenty of people around to say that it’s “just a joke.” Except that it’s not, not really. It’s not funny. It’s not appropriate, and then to trot out the wife card, as if he couldn’t really be an ass about women because he is married after all, some woman wanted him, is trumping up the whole bit of it being funny to laugh about sexual harassment at work, as if it’s just a British joke. Hunt, it seems, blames the internet for apparently blowing it all out of proportion, taking his remarks out of context, or maybe just presenting them to the world for review. Hunt may as well be saying: “I’m not a chauvinist, but…women scientists need their own labs…”
Connie St.Louis broke the story on Tim Hunt’s comments, and she has been mulling that decision and Tim Hunt’s supposed victim status:
The sociologist Andre Lorde defines sexism as “the belief in the inherent superiority of one sex and thereby the right to dominance”. The Tim Hunt story has followed a typical pattern of oppression. First there is a hollow apology. Then there is claim about being misunderstood. Next there is an outcry from the establishment.
So it’s no surprise that a growing number of people, mainly men, have come forward to support Hunt. Hunt’s interview in the Observer at his lovely house in rural Hertfordshire is full of anecdotes of him doing the grocery shopping and cooking. (A modern reconstructed man?) It ends with both Hunt and his wife, Mary Collins, complaining that they have been “hung out to dry” by the various scientific establishments.
Deborah Blum, an American colleague who also was at the conference lunch and heard Hunt’s remarks, has published a piece about the incident. She asked him to clarify his comments but he stood by them. She has storified this on Twitter.
And here is the issue: how can Tim Hunt be hung out to dry based on his own comments? The scientific community is supposed to embrace joking about the harassment of women? Tim Hunt says it’s a joke:
During Hunt’s outburst, the female Korean scientists and engineers were stunned and confused. However, they have now spoken. They were deeply offended and didn’t get Hunt’s “jokes”. Nobody was laughing. Hunt now claims he added the words “now seriously” before going on to praise the role of women in science and in Korean society. “The words ‘now seriously’ make it very clear that I was making a joke, albeit a very bad one, but they were not mentioned in the first reports and I was deluged with hate mail,” Hunt said. He did not say this, nor did he praise the role of women in science and in Korean society. I wish he had; things would have been so much better.
Come on women scientists, can’t you just take a joke? Such a joke to demean women entirely by their sex, just a joke. Other men have rushed to Tim Hunt’s aid, apparently feeling that their chauvinism might be noticed on an international stage, and gasp, affect their jobs:
Next eight Nobel laureates, plus the ubiquitous Richard Dawkins, have come out in support of Hunt. There are over 2,000 signatures on an online petition to reinstate him to his honorary post at UCL. Contrast this with 200+ signatures on a petition that I started calling on the Royal Society to elect its first female president. The Nobel eight made an idiotic attempt to equate the upset caused by Hunt’s ill advised and sexist comments with some kind of “chilling effect” on academics.
This is an absurd idea and deserves to be outed for what it is, a deeply cynical attempt to say that scientists can do and say what they like. In the name of academic freedom? Is science so special that any old sexist (or for that matter racist) words that they utter are allowed? The answer is and must be a resounding no.
Connie St. Louis, the woman who broke the story about Tim Hunt, has been frustrated by the outpouring of male support for derogatory remarks against women that were “just a joke.” Sexual harassment in academics isn’t a joking matter. It’s not a joke to write off all women in science as crybabies, or to say that all women cry when you [men] criticize them. Tim Hunt wins the Asshole of the Week Award, just a joke after all.
The Cornucopia Institute has published this handy little diagram that shows the overlap of the United States governmental employees with Monsanto employees. Pretty strong association between the United States Department of Agriculture and Monsanto. In fact, looks like a majority of USDA employees are also Monsanto employees. How does that work?
Is the USDA a wholly-owned subsidiary of Monsanto?
The Federal Supreme Court has been guilty of grandstanding lately, and there is no member of that court with more illusions of grandiosity than Scalia, who just issued an “opinion” that many are taking to imply that there is no fundamental right to marry in the United States, a mere trivializing of the so-called importance of the Federal Supreme Court. It’s always saddened me that the Supreme Court, and a majority of courts in the US, now act as arbiters of moral standing in the US. There should be no morality in a court, because morality is generally a religious based concept. Adding a concept of morals to a court decision means adding a religious sentiment that should never intrude into a court’s purview. Once the courts start talking about marriage, the issue of morality always comes into play. It’s sugar-coated, to be sure, de-emphasized as lacking fundamental rights protection, as in Kerry v. Din, and then hailed as saving the nation or in need of protection from the religious right–it’s a hall no secular court should darken.
The Federal Supreme Court’s “review” of marriage, which is a religious-based concept is repugnant as it is. The fact that in the Kerry, Secretary of State v. Din, the Supreme Court offered no real new decision, only affirming that spouses don’t have the rights to challenge what is essentially a criminal conviction of their married partner. Kerry, Secretary of State v. Din is a grandstanding decision. It’s not a real decision. It took no sound legal mind to deduce that a spouse doesn’t get access to all of her accused-terroritst-husband’s records from the feds. Terrorist plots, like treason, are a storm unto their own. If there was any “decision” in there, it should be described as the process for dealing with a would-be terrorist, not anything related to marriage.
Of course, the Kerry v. Din case is really just a preview, in some opinions, regarding the right to gay marriage, with the argument being that if marriage isn’t a fundamental right, then neither is gay marriage, and then things get mushy.
But Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court the connection was visible, at least in a plurality opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia. In a fractured decision, the court held that Fauzia Din, an American citizen, couldn’t get a hearing in court after the State Department refused a visa to her husband, an Afghan national, citing terrorism as the reason. According to Scalia, there’s no constitutional “liberty interest in marriage” sufficient to give Din a hearing over her husband’s denial — a position that foreshadows what Scalia will certainly say when the court rules on same-sex marriage in the next couple of weeks.
Here is where the courts have made a mistake in wading into the marriage abyss: marriage is so often defined by religion that by deciding cases on marriage, the court can’t help but wade into religious grounds. Of course, people like to separate Scalia’s phrase to say there is no liberty interest in marriage at all rather than no liberty interest in a spouse’s right to question a government’s determination of a partner’s terrorist activities. It’s a big distinction in the phrasing there. Scalia may not be saying there is no liberty interest in marriage, just that there is no liberty interest in terrorist activities coupled with marriage. That is the part that really is a no-brainer. Since when have married partners ever had a say in whether or not their spouses were charged with terrorist-related charges? Now comes the marriage circus, and the grandstanding involved in issuing the Kerry v. Din decision that isn’t any real precedent whatsoever but still served to put Scalia where whines to be, in the spotlight.
People then obsess over questions of marriage instead of ignoring the embarrassing plea for attention that is Kerry v. Din. Scalia isn’t the only one who should have remained on a stage for his love affair with the spotlight, other justices joined in, too. Let the show begin. It’s all lights and no substance.
If someone has “gotten right with Jesus,” none of us can judge, him right? If someone has told God that they sexually molested young children, then society is in no position to step, according to the Duggars and the Catholic Church, apparently. Josh Duggar has recently “apologized” (and I use the term very loosely) for sexually molesting his sisters and other children. A cynic might say that he only “apologized” when the story broke that he had molested his sisters, but he issued a public statement about how he apologized to his victims and got “mercy” from God. As another blogger pointed out, this so-called apology is entirely focused on Josh Duggar and how his sexually abusing his sisters impacted his life:
Josh Duggar’s got a steep hill to climb, and I have no intention of piling on, but something about his public statement galls me. Here’s the full thing with some additional emphases:
Twelve years ago, as a young teenager I acted inexcusably for which I am extremely sorry and deeply regret. I hurt others, including my family and close friends. I confessed this to myparents who took several steps to help me address the situation. We spoke with the authorities where I confessed my wrongdoing and my parents arranged for me and those affected by my actions to receive counseling. I understood that if I continued down this wrong road that I would end up ruining my life. I sought forgiveness from those I had wronged and asked Christ to forgiveme and come into my life. I would do anything to go back to those teen years and take different actions. In my life today, I am so very thankful for God’s grace, mercy and redemption.
That’s more than 20 personal references and only two passing nods to his victims and the harm he inflicted. What’s more, he blunts the second reference. In the first he mentions people he “hurt,” but the second only mentions “those affected by my actions.”
And it gets even worse at the end because Duggar plays the Jesus card. He asked Christ for pardon, he says, and we should all know that he’s grateful for the forgiveness. It’s impossible to escape the idea that the entire focus of Josh Duggar’s statement is Josh Duggar being okay with Josh Duggar. As if anyone cares about that.
I don’t know what a public “apology” for committing sexual abuse against children should look like, but the end result of this statement echoes the Catholic Church’s assertion that since God took care of everything, there is no legal issue from committing a sex crime, particularly for committing a sex crime against children. Let’s all celebrate God’s forgiveness of sexual predators and not take any action, right? Yeah, not the way the criminal justice system works, and for just this reason. For a sexual predator to simply say that God forgives him just validates the concept that he is a predator, and most predators justify criminal actions with their own system of personal validation.
It’s part of the criminal mindset to justify a crime according to a personal set of values. For example, child sexual predators make up scenarios in which they say the child came on to them. (For a quick primer on how the child sexual predator thinks, read the the Lolita novel, scary.) In other words, part of the criminal mindset is justifying a horrible crime according to a value set that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what is an abuse against another person. Josh Duggar’s so-called apology epitomizes the criminal mindset at play with child sexual predators.
Famous men have gotten away with this type of sexual predation for years–shout out to you, Catholic Church (priest molesting boys) Federal Supreme Court (Clarence Thomas), and Bill Cosby. As an article in The Guardian points out, the Duggar case is just another in a long line of society’s protection of sexual predators:
The Duggar case, in this regard, is particularly repulsive. For those unversed in the “look at this weird family” school of American reality television (subsets include “let’s all laugh at the impoverished” and “fats – they think they’re people!”), the Duggar family populates a programme called 19 Kids and Counting, formerly 18 Kids and Counting, formerly 17 Kids and Counting. The premise is that patriarch Jim Bob Duggar incessantly impregnates his wife Michelle in order to expand the ranks of their sanctimonious Christian homeschooling cult – which, as far as I can tell, holds as its sacraments: boringness, purity, female subservience, shamelessly rubbing heterosex in strangers’ faces, the letter “J”, hairdos of a peltlike nature and keeping LGBT people from doing stuff…
“News” “broke” this week that the eldest Duggar son, Josh, sexually assaulted at least five girls (four of whom were his sisters) when he was 14, allegedly sneaking into their bedrooms at night to grope them while they slept. I say “news” sarcastically because this occurred all the way back in 2002, so it’s hardly new, and I say “broke” sarcastically because the list of people who are said to have known about it this entire goddamn time apparently includes but is not limited to: Jim Bob Duggar, Michelle Duggar, an unknown number of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar’s church friends, at least one online commenter, an Arkansas state trooper who did not pursue the case for some strange reason and then in a totally unrelated coincidence was imprisoned for child pornography later.
And yet, as is typical, especially in insular, patriarchal religious communities, Josh’s life rolled on with little perceptible disruption – he’s now married with four children of his own, two of whom are girls, and (until he resigned this week) he was executive director of the political arm of the Family Research Council, a rightwing hate group that specialises in spreading hysteria about transgender people assaulting your children in public toilets. Josh has already been defended by rightwing Christians as high-profile as presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, who called the sexual assault of five children a “mistake” made by a “good [person]”. One pastor’s wife who also subscribes to the Duggars’ “Quiverfull” movement (which, apparently, is where you pretend your nutsack is a quiver and your penis is a stout longbow and your wife is a pile of hay or rags that you shoot sperm arrows into), argued that Josh was just “playing doctor” and deserves to be “left alone to live a good life”.
Why does it seem that religious right extremists/cultists always seem to be involved in sexual abuse? Maybe it only seems that way, but it seems that way every single time they are on the news. Warren Jefts ring a bell?
How dangerous is this cover-up of male sexual predators? So dangerous it made a sexual predator into a Federal Supreme Court justice, a man whose rulings have argued to support all kinds of abuse from power figures, the government, police officers, men against women, and anything else you can think of, Clarence Thomas’s rulings argue in support of abusive behavior. It’s a frightening level of manipulation and power to wield against the public, and it’s been unchecked. Clarence Thomas still argues he did nothing wrong, even when Anita Hill provided evidence that he sexually harassed her. Another woman was sexually abused by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (just writing that makes me gag), and an incredible power structure because he was judge prevented her from testifying, according to a Time magazine article:
In an interview with TIME last week, Savage recalled her meeting with Brock in the lobby of the Marriott Hotel in downtown Washington in 1994. A book titled Strange Justice, by reporters Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson, had just come out — and it used on-the-record interviews to argue persuasively that Thomas had indeed subjected a number of women to frequent sexually explicit remarks about porno videos. Savage, a black mid-level aide in the Reagan Administration, told both the authors and the Judiciary Committee (although she wasn’t called to testify publicly) that when she went to Thomas’ apartment in the early 1980s, the place was littered with graphic photos of nude women. When Savage met Brock, she says, he let her know he could ruin her. “He knew all this personal stuff,” she says. “He wanted me to take back what I had said. I couldn’t — it was true — but I was intimidated, and so I faxed him something innocuous. I was scared.”
Society’s inability, and largely powerful male inability, to confront sexual predators allowed a sexual predator to be appointed, a lifetime appointment, to the Federal Supreme Court of the United States of America. Sickening stuff. Josh Duggar’s so-called apology and concomitant self talk just illustrates the larger problem of allowing men in power to sexually abuse women and children with immunity. Look younger sexual predators, your predilection to harm women and children need not stand in the way of your career expectations; you, too, can be placed on the highest court in the United States. Look, Josh Duggar, your sexual abuse of your sisters and other children need not be prosecuted or prevent you from making millions on television and proselytizing hatred for the gay community or anyone else you feel doesn’t support your sexual predilection [to children?] and your breeding like rabbits.
It’s not just that he pulled the Jesus card to condone his sexual predation against children, it’s a large pattern that would seemingly support such behavior when the criminal justifies sexual predation and others agree with it. The Time article I quoted was published in 2001, and still nothing was done to Clarence Thomas; the writer of the article claimed he “broke no law,” which would be accurate unless you feel that coercing women to watch pornography as part of a work function isn’t breaking a law, or using your status as a judge in a custody hearing to prevent a your sexual abuse victim from testifying against you by threatening to take her kids away. No, abuse of office isn’t a law, especially when you use that to commit sexual abuse, is it? Or it only isn’t a crime if you are a famous man?
Clarence Thomas offered up a memoir, which not many read, nor will read, and his description of Anita Hill and the so-called conspiracy against him sounds eerily like Josh Duggar’s “apology.” An article in The New Yorker points out that if Clarence Thomas really believed Anita Hill were lying, why did he not call for an investigation into her story? Why didn’t anyone pay attention to Anita Hill, to find out if she were really lying or not?
“Senator, I believed that someone, some interest group—I don’t care who it is—in combination, came up with this story and used this process to destroy me…. I believe that in combination this was developed, or concocted, to destroy me… my view is that others put it together and developed this…. All I know is that the story is here and I think it was concocted…. The story is false, the story is here, and the story was developed to harm me.”
If Thomas and his supporters were speaking the truth, then not only he but also the entire nation were being victimized by a monstrous plot to use perjured testimony in order to undermine a solemn process mandated by the Constitution itself—and, thereby, to alter the course of American government for decades to come. A considerable number of people would necessarily have committed serious crimes in furtherance of this plot, beginning, of course, with Anita Hill herself.
Ideological conviction is not a valid defense for perjury. Nor are ego, ambition, and immaturity. If Hill was lying on her own, then she deserved to go to jail. If she had been programmed to lie, her programmers—feminists, liberals, and pro-choicers, presumably—deserved jail, too. It would have been a simple matter to collect the evidence from e-mail and telephone records and from the testimony, immunized and compelled if necessary, of her co-conspirators and other witnesses.
Nothing of the kind happened, of course. The Senate, for its part, did vote, 86-12, to launch an investigation. But its sole writ was to find out who leaked the existence of Hill’s preliminary affidavit to the press, and it quickly petered out.
From Thomas’s supporters, there were no calls for a special prosecutor, no demands to bring in the F.B.I., no expressions of outrage that Hill and the other plotters were being permitted to get away scot-free, no attempts to uphold the rule of law and the Constitutional order by ensuring that the guilty were indicted, tried, and imprisoned for their crimes.
The answer to that is, no one wanted to know the truth. The Senate couldn’t handle the truth, that Anita Hill didn’t lie and that the United States Senate just confirmed to the United States Federal Supreme Court a sexual predator, allowing Clarence Thomas to hide behind the race card and his skin color, much like Josh Duggar hides behind the Jesus card. We shouldn’t judge a man for his sex crimes because he is black? Or we shouldn’t judge a man for his sexual assault against children because he believes in Jesus?
Sadly enough, both reputable papers, The Guardian and The New Yorker, whose writers are not attorneys, mind you, opined that Clarence Thomas committed no crimes, well, if you don’t consider sexual abuse a crime…