Re: Torchwood--So do they not have ***ual harrassment laws across

In article <USZPj.3713$Ks1.963@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
peachy a****e passion  <exquisitepeach@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>   Sorry, no.  The minute they decide to knuckle under and keep someone 
>rather than fire them, they lose victim status and join in on being 
>complicit in the system working the way it does.

That *is* blaming the victim.

The system works this way because of vague and over-encompassing rules,
slanted definitions, bureaucratic requirements, biased courts, and a
public conditioned to regard accusations as proof of truth.  How exactly
does giving in to blackmail make the victim complicit in this system?

>  If the police knuckled under any time a person said they were going to 
>sue they might as well fold up shop and quit, because nearly every dang 
>person arrested says it at some point.

There's a reason why innocent police don't knuckle under to threats of
"I'll sue" but innocent companies do.  The reason is that the system
favors
the police, but works against the companies.

If the police did, in fact, knuckle under whenever someone threatened to
sue, I'd start thinking "maybe the police are doing this because we're
making it too hard for them to defend against suits".

>   But go ahead and blame the real victims, the ***ually harassed, 
>because there are rules against it that bad guys can use.

It is almost always true that stripping the innocent of protections makes
it
easier to convict the guilty (and thus to protect the "real" victims).
That's not an excuse for it.
-- 
       Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net /
http://www.rahul.net/arromdee

"In a superhero story, Superman jumps off buildings and flies. In a
realistic
story, Superman doesn't jump off buildings and can't fly. Deconstruction
is
writing a story where Superman can't fly but he still jumps off of
buildings."