PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Teri Stoddard

Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

Leahy Bill Would Turn Every College Male into a Rape Suspect, Group Warns

Washington, DC/October 27, 2011 – Senator Patrick Leahy’s proposed Violence Against Women Act reauthorization would trample upon the due process rights of college students, according to Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE). The bill would make into law the Department of Education’s recently issued guidelines that reduce the standard of proof in sexual assault cases to the controversial “preponderance of evidence” level.

That unusually low standard requires only that 50.01 percent of the evidence be in favor of an assault having happened. SAVE previously requested the Department of Education to rescind its guidelines, which were issued without prior notice or opportunity for public comment: http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/OCRLetter.pdf.

Earlier this month, Caleb Warner was allowed to return to the University of North Dakota after being victimized by the university’s unconstitutionally low standard of evidence. The accuser had filed claims of sexual assault with both the University and the municipal police department. Two investigations resulted — the university’s according to the preponderance standard, and the police’s according to the usual “clear and convincing” standard — and they could not have turned out more differently.

Warner was found guilty by his university and banned from campus after a swift investigation. Meanwhile local police reviewed the very same evidence, determined that Warner’s accuser was lying, and charged her with filing a false report: http://www.saveservices.org/2011/10/victory-student-punished-for-alleged-sexual-assault-cleared-by-u-of-nd/

Section 304 of the proposed VAWA law would make the preponderance of evidence standard the legally required one, and sets up UND’s shoddy treatment of Caleb Warner as the desired institutional response.

“If Senator Leahy’s version of VAWA is passed, we can expect travesties of justice at every college in the nation,” warns SAVE spokesman Philip W. Cook. “The frequency with which false allegations of sexual assault are made — as many as half of all claims — makes it absolutely essential that students’ Constitutional due process rights are protected.”

SAVE has documented the harm done by false sexual assault allegations: http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/False-Allegations-Harm-Families-and-Children. SAVE urges Senator Leahy to reject the Education Department’s unjust “preponderance of evidence” standard, and adopt the proper “clear and convincing” standard instead.

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner violence: www.saveservices.org.

PRESS RELEASE
Changes to Violence Against Women Act Would Threaten Student Due Process Rights

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
October 31, 2011

WASHINGTON, October 31, 2011—Congressional legislation reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) may include new provisions sharply reducing due process protections for college students accused of sexual assault, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has learned. A draft of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 circulated by Senator Patrick Leahy’s office effectively requires that colleges and universities receiving federal funding must employ a “preponderance of the evidence” standard—a 50.01%, “more likely than not” evidentiary burden—when adjudicating student complaints concerning sexual assault. The draft also includes a provision requiring universities to allow alleged victims of sexual assault to appeal the results of college disciplinary hearings, subjecting accused students to a form of “double jeopardy” not allowed in our nation’s courts.

Deeply concerned about these threats to campus due process, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is urging citizens to contact their Senators and ask them to reject these provisions in the draft bill. FIRE holds no position on any other section of VAWA or the draft bill.

“These provisions are fatally flawed and do not belong in federal law,” said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. “Reducing protections for students who are accused of serious misconduct will not increase justice.”

The draft bill provides that colleges adjudicating student complaints concerning sexual assault must “apply the standard of proof recommended by the most recent Guidance issued by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights” (OCR). OCR is the federal agency tasked with enforcing federal civil rights laws, including Title IX, in educational programs and institutions that receive federal funding. In an April 4, 2011, “Dear Colleague Letter” from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali, OCR mandated that colleges and universities receiving federal funding must employ a preponderance of the evidence standard under Title IX when adjudicating allegations of sexual harassment and sexual asssault—a requirement the 39-year-old law had not previously been interpreted to contain. OCR’s new regulations have already coerced colleges and universities across the country to abandon their commitment to due process protections for students accused of sexual assault.

Supreme Court precedent argues strongly against using the preponderance of the evidence standard in campus hearings concerning allegations of sexual harassment or sexual violence. FIRE pointed out in an open letter to OCR on May 5, 2011, that preponderance of the evidence is our judiciary’s lowest evidentiary standard and provides insufficient protection to students accused of serious misconduct. FIRE explained that lowering the burden of proof in sexual assault cases will reduce confidence in campus judiciary systems and inevitably result in more incorrect guilty verdicts. OCR has failed to respond to FIRE’s letter or to two letters from the American Association of University Professors in defense of due process rights.

Codifying OCR’s new requirement in VAWA would cement OCR’s errors into federal law, ensuring further injustices like those suffered by University of North Dakota (UND) student Caleb Warner. Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, Warner was found guilty of sexual assault and banned from campus for three years. However, the same evidence led North Dakota law enforcement to charge Warner’s accuser with making a false report to law enforcement—a charge for which she is still wanted by the police. After 18 months, UND finally re-examined Warner’s case only after the university’s injustice was exposed by FIRE. Earlier this month, FIRE announced that UND had vacated Warner’s suspension.

The draft bill also provides that colleges must maintain “procedures for the accused and the victim [emphasis added] to appeal the results of the institutional disciplinary proceeding.” The requirement contradicts the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on “double jeopardy,” whereby someone accused of a crime cannot be tried again for the same charge once the original hearing has properly ended in either acquittal or conviction. For the same reasons of fundamental fairness that our criminal justice system does not allow the accused to face double jeopardy, Congress should not force college students to face a second hearing for the same charge. Further, allowing accusers to appeal a not-guilty finding amplifies the due process problems introduced by the preponderance of the evidence mandate.

These new provisions in the VAWA reauthorization draft bill stem from the draft’s incorporation of elements of the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act. (Section 304 of the draft is titled “Campus SaVE Act.”) The Campus SaVE Act, introduced in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, contains nearly identical requirements and similarly restricts fundamental due process rights. The proposed new rules dangerously tip the scales toward finding more innocent students guilty.

“Colleges have both a legal and a moral duty to address sexual assault on campus, but working to eliminate such crimes does not require colleges and universities to forsake fundamental student rights,” Robert Shibley, FIRE’s Senior Vice President, said. “FIRE asks Senator Leahy and his colleagues to retract these ill-advised provisions, lest the newest generation of college students learn the wrong lesson about the crucial importance of due process.”

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America are described at thefire.org.

Source: http://thefire.org/article/13805.html

Cain Says He was ‘Falsely Accused’ of Harassment

October 31, 2011

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain admitted Monday to being accused of sexual harassment while at the helm of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, but denied ever engaging in such activity.

Cain decried a story that said the association had reached settlements with two women who lodged sexual harassment claims against him as part of a “witch hunt” associated with his recent surge in the polls.

“I have never sexually harassed anyone, and yes, I was falsely accused while I was at the National Restaurant Association,” Cain said in an interview on Fox News, his first comments on the Politico story from Sunday. “I say falsely because it turned out, after the investigation, to be baseless.”

Cain sought to forcefully dispute the story, which said Cain had been accused of sexually suggestive behavior toward at least two female employees during his time as head of the restaurant lobby.

The report said the women signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them five-figure financial payouts to leave the association and barred them from discussing their departures. Neither woman was identified.

Cain said he had never personally settled any sexual harassment suit, and that if the NRA had settled any claims, it had done so without his knowledge.

“If the Restaurant Association did a settlement, I wasn’t even aware of it, and I hope it wasn’t for much because nothing happened,” he explained on Fox. “So if there was a settlement, it was handled by some of the other officers that worked for me at the association.”

Cain said, though, during an afternoon speech that he wouldn’t ask the association to release further information, and that his campaign viewed the issue as closed.

“As far as we’re concerned, enough’s said about this issue,” Cain said.

Cain’s campaign has launched an all-out effort Monday to dispute the story. Campaign manager and chief of staff Mark Block forcefully denied the Politico story on television this morning.

Source: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45099767/ns/today-today_news/t/cain-says-he-was-falsely-accused-harassment/#

FIRE Releases Survey of Evidence Standards Used by Nation’s Top Colleges

William Creeley

October 28, 2011

FIRE has compiled a survey of the standards of evidence employed by the nation’s top colleges and universities in an effort to gauge the impact of the new requirements announced by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

In an April 4, 2011, “Dear Colleague” letter, OCR mandated that colleges and universities receiving federal funding must employ a “preponderance of the evidence” standard—a 50.01%, “more likely than not” evidentiary burden—when adjudicating student complaints concerning sexual harassment or sexual violence. Schools must adopt the low preponderance of the evidence standard or else risk losing federal funding. The preponderance of the evidence standard is our judiciary’s lowest standard of proof—and, as FIRE explained at length in our May 5, 2011, response letter to OCR (to which OCR has failed to respond), it does not sufficiently protect an accused student’s right to due process.

FIRE’s survey, released today, demonstrates that OCR’s requirement will have a significant impact on university judicial processes, as nearly 40 of the nation’s top 100 universities as ranked by U.S. News & World Report must change or have already changed their policies to incorporate OCR’s mandated standard of proof. FIRE’s research also reveals that OCR’s requirement disproportionately affects higher-ranked schools, more of which had previously employed higher standards of proof.

Some of the major trends highlighted by FIRE’s research include:

  • 39 colleges ranked in the top 100 have already changed or will be required to change their standard of evidence to comply with the OCR mandate.
  • Nine of the top 10 colleges did not use the OCR-mandated “preponderance” standard prior to the OCR letter.
  • 17 of the top 100 colleges had explicitly used a “clear and convincing evidence” or “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.
  • Only one school out of the top 100 colleges, Brown University, previously used a standard clearly lower than “preponderance of the evidence.”

You can download the entire survey and the school-by-school appendix at the bottom of the page here: http://www.thefire.org/article/13796.html

Source: http://thefire.org/article/13799.html

Blowing Old allegations into Headline News: The Sex Rumors about Herman Cain, and the Ugly Spectre of Black Men as Sexual Predators

False Rape Society

October 31, 2011

POLITICO reports that back in the 1990s, “at least” two unnamed female employees of the National Restaurant Association, which black GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain headed from 1996-1999, complained to colleagues and senior association officials about alleged inappropriate sexual behavior by Cain involving alleged conversations supposedly “filled” with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, which supposed unspecified conduct allegedly offended the women and forced them to leave their jobs at the trade group. The unnamed women supposedly signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts. The agreements, we are told, included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.

POLITICO says it knows the identities of the two women but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.

So the uppity black Republican is crucified by innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations, and the women who supposedly were wronged can’t be subjected to the well-honed scalpel of cross-examination by those few media types who’d be willing to subject them to it.

In the days ahead, some members of the news media will try to dredge up the more-than-decade-old allegations in the hope of “trying” the claims in the court of last resort, the American media circus. The same media circus, by the way, that gave such a fair “hearing” to the Duke lacrosse boys, the Hofstra defendants and too many others to chronicle. And, yes, that was sarcasm.

In the end, the result of such efforts is as predictable as it will be unsatisfying: it will be “he said/she said,” which means, he loses, because when it comes to sex allegations in America, the accusation becomes its own conviction, and it’s usually enough to destroy any man, especially a prominent black Republican.

The Cain innuendo raises the spectre of America’s shameful habit of stereotyping black men and boys as hyper-sexualized primitives, barely able to control their urges when it comes to women. It was that ugly stereotype that made a white woman’s cry of “rape” a death sentence for countless innocent black men and boys in the Old South, and in too many other places (Duluth, most prominently).

Remember the 1897 New York Times piece we talked about earlier this year? It was an unabashed defense of the practice of lynching blacks for the crime of rape. The writer noted that the victims of such lynchings were “generally black negroes of the lowest order” because, he asserted, “the negro is generally the criminal” and “he seems particularly given to this odious crime.” What about false claims? Make sure you’re sitting down when you read this: “The only ground of objection to this mode of dealing with these criminals is the fear that the innocent might suffer. As the most careful precautions are taken against this result it is not a likely thing lest the wrong man is executed.”

Have these attitudes really changed? Surely the New York Times would never again print such an odious celebration of prejudice against black men, but the unspoken beliefs still bubble just beneath the surface. Can you say “Hofstra”? As Clarence Thomas said at the circus that masqueraded as his Senate confirmation hearing: “This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”

How should the allegations about Cain be treated? The way the news media treated the sexual assault allegation against Al Gore. Or, rather, didn’t treat it. The news media barefly covered it because it wasn’t newsworthy, you say? But a rape claim against minority teenagers at Hofstra was newsworthy? Um, right. Put it this way, Al Gore, a former US Vice President, is one of the most revered icons of the left. He got more popular votes in the 2000 election than George W. Bush. He won the Nobel Prize and the Academy Award. But the rape claim against him was scarcely worth mentioning?

For the record, when the Gore claim finally hit the news last year — several years after it was first made — and was quickly buried by the press, I said this: “. . . the way the news media covered the claim against Gore is the way the news media should cover all rape claims.” A lot of conservative talk show hosts were quick to malign Gore for political advantage.

In covering the innuendo against Cain arising from two alleged claims from the 1990s, we should be guided by feminist Susan Estrich, who, last year, discussed how we should treat the claim against Al Gore. “[T]he problem is,” she said, “we just don’t know and there’s no way to determine.” Then she said this: “I’m the mother of a son and a daughter. And I would hate like heck for my daughter ever to be in a position where she faces an unwanted sexual advance. . . . . But I’m also the mother of a son. And you and I both witnessed, for instance, in the Duke case, a number of young men whose lives were — for all intends [sic] and purposes . . . ruined by a false accusation.”

Somehow, I don’t think too many people will care if Herman Cain was falsely accused. Just a hunch.

Source: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/10/blowing-old-allegations-into-headline.html

Herman Cain Denies Allegations of Sexual Harassment

By Kim Geiger
October 30, 2011

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain is denying allegations that he had been accused of sexual harassment when he was head of the National Restaurant Assn.

The allegations were revealed Sunday night in a report by Politico. Cain had refused to comment on the charges when approached by Politico earlier in the day.

Cain campaign spokesman J.D. Gordon told the Associated Press late Sunday night that the campaign denied the report.

“Inside-the-Beltway media have begun to launch unsubstantiated personal attacks on Cain,” Gordon said in a written statement to the Associated Press. “Dredging up thinly sourced allegations stemming from Mr. Cain’s tenure as the Chief Executive Officer at the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, political trade press are now casting aspersions on his character and spreading rumors that never stood up to the facts.”

Asked by the AP if the campaign was denying the report, Godon said, “Yes.”

The Republican presidential candidate and retired pizza chain executive was accused of sexual harassment by at least two women during his tenure as head of the National Restaurant Assn., Politico reported in a story that cites multiple anonymous sources and a review of documentation that described some of the allegations.

The two women had worked at the restaurant trade group under Cain, but left their posts after complaining about his behavior. The women signed agreements with the association that included financial payouts and barred them from discussing their departures, according to the Politico report.

Sources told Politico that the behavior included “conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association’s offices.”

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-cain-denies-20111030,0,1342921.story

Same-Sex Domestic Violence Rose Significantly In 2010

By Bridgette P. LaVictoire

October 27, 2011

The 2010 Report on Intimate Partner Violence in the LGBTQ and HIV-Affected Communities was released today…

…The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs or NCAVP released the report…

…They found that there was an increase in the severity of violence experienced by survivors, there were six documented deaths from same-sex domestic violence, but more survivors were turned away from shelters in 2010. Additionally, less than half of those survivors who sought a protection order were able to get one, and survivors often had major problems dealing with law enforcement.

According to the press release:

…This report is a product of the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP), a coalition of 38 anti-violence organizations. Seventeen anti-violence programs in 14 states across the country—including Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, New York, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin—contributed data to this report. A complete version of the report is available online.

In 2010, NCAVP programs received 5,052 reports of IPV, an increase of 38.1% from the 3,658 reports in 2009. The LA Gay & Lesbian Center (LAGLC) received additional funding for their IPV programming, accounting for a significant portion of the increase in reported numbers nationwide. “In 2010 we were able to hire a dedicated staff person to focus on gathering information about local IPV incidents,” said Susan Holt, Program Manager, STOP Partner Abuse/Domestic Violence Program at the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center. “The increase in reports of intimate partner violence during this time demonstrates the tremendous impact that increased funding can have in allowing anti-violence programs to better support LGBTQH IPV survivors.”…

…In 2010, more than half of survivors (55.4%) experienced physical violence at the hands of their abusive partners, a substantial increase from 2009 (36.5%)…“This rise in severity demonstrates the critical need for mainstream service providers and first responders such as the police, emergency responders, medical providers, counseling services, legal services and domestic violence shelters to have LGBTQH-specific competency.”

NCAVP documented six IPV deaths in 2010 consistent with the six documented murders in 2009. Of these six victims, four identified as female…

…More survivors in 2010 (44.6%) were turned away from shelter than in 2009 (34.8%). Additionally, in 2010, NCAVP saw 54.4% of survivors seeking an order of protection were denied one…“Policymakers need to increase support and safety for LGBTQH survivors by preventing all service providers from discriminating against survivors based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

…In 2010, 7.1% of survivors called the police for support, a decrease from 2009 where 21.7% of survivors called the police, indicatingreluctance on the part of LGBTQH survivors to seek assistance from law enforcement…

NCAVP works to prevent, respond to and end all forms of violence against and within lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and HIV-affected (LGBTQH) communities….

Read more on Lez Get Real.

Leahy Bill Could Lower Burden of Proof for Campus Sexual Harassment

Caroline May

October 28, 2011

Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy’s reauthorization of the “Violence Against Women Act” has already begun to cause a bit of a stir — and he has yet to even introduce it.

Inserted into a recent draft of the bill is language that would force universities to lower the burden of proof to a “preponderance of evidence” in cases of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

While the draft is just that — a draft — should it be finalized as is, the bill would codify a Department of Education directive by applying “the standard of proof recommended by the most recent Guidance issued by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.”

The April 4 guidance penned by the Department of Education’s Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Russlynn Ali, and sent to public universities across the country was met with harsh criticism from activists and university professors, specifically for its lowered burden of proof. Now it could become federal law.

“[I]n order for a school’s grievance procedures to be consistent with Title IX standards, the school must use a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., it is more likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred),” Ali wrote in April. “The ‘clear and convincing’ standard (i.e., it is highly probable or reasonably certain that the sexual harassment or violence occurred), currently used by some schools, is a higher standard of proof.”

To be sure, Leahy’s office noted that the actual bill to reauthorize VAWA has not been introduced and that the process of bringing this kind of legislation to the floor is a long one. Furthermore, a number of different drafts have been circulated, not just the one currently in the hands of interest groups.

According to the Education Department’s letter, the preponderance of evidence standard is already required under Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in “educational environments.”

“Police investigations may be useful for fact-gathering; but because the standards for criminal investigations are different, police investigations or reports are not determinative of whether sexual harassment or violence violates Title IX,” the April 4 guidance reads. “Conduct may constitute unlawful sexual harassment under Title IX even if the police do not have sufficient evidence of a criminal violation. In addition, a criminal investigation into allegations of sexual violence does not relieve the school of its duty under Title IX to resolve complaints promptly and equitably.”

Hans Bader, special counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a former official in the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, explained that if Leahy introduces a draft with the April guidance, it will be an unprecedented move — allowing a federal agency to dictate a college’s standard of proof.

“It really is strange for a bill to delegate to a federal agency the power to lower due process protections and standards of proof. I believe that is unprecedented,” Bader told TheDC. “Under the Senate draft, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights could lower the standard of proof even further from its controversial ‘Dear Colleague’ letter to situations where the accused is likely innocent, but some doubt remains — like a ‘reasonable grounds’ or ‘probable cause’ standard.”

The self-described victim advocacy group Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) has begun to sound the alarm on this — sending out a press release Thursday warning: “Leahy Bill Would Turn Every College Male into a Rape Suspect.”

“If Senator Leahy’s version of VAWA is passed, we can expect travesties of justice at every college in the nation,” warned SAVE spokesman Philip W. Cook. “The frequency with which false allegations of sexual assault are made — as many as half of all claims — makes it absolutely essential that students’ Constitutional due process rights are protected.”

While turning all college males into rape suspects is likely not the intent of the legislation, inserting the guidance into the bill would be sure to re-ignite the outcry that erupted as a result of the initial recommendation.

Source: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/27/leahy-bill-could-lower-burden-of-proof-for-campus-sexual-harassment/#ixzz1c63mB2S0

Wrongly Accused UND Student Will Not Return To UND

WDAZ Staff Report, WDAZ
October 25, 2011

The mother of a UND student who was falsely accused of sexual assault and kicked out of school says her son will not return to UND.

Sherry Warner-Seefeld says her son Caleb Warner just wants to put the incident behind him and get on with his life. Nearly two years after being accused of rape Warner’s expulsion was reversed.

Despite being cleared of the charges, Warner wasn’t able to get his expulsion reversed until he brought in the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to represent his case.

He was accused of four violations of the code of student life including violation of a criminal or civil law, sexual assault, interference and sexual misconduct.

Warner was never arrested and never formally charged for the accusations. He was earlier found not in violation of the sexual misconduct.

Warner’s accuser, a UND student at the time, was charged with making false allegations.

He admitted having sex with the alleged victim, but has maintained it was consensual.

Despite being cleared of the charges, Warner wasn’t able to get his expulsion reversed.

That is until just about a week ago when UND vacated the expulsion after Warner brought in the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to represent his case.

UND had refused to reopen the case as late as August 2010.

The school told Caleb Warner not to set foot on campus for three years, after a student relations committee ruling in February 2010.

A Grand Forks police spokesman said the alleged victim has returned to live in her home state of California.

Jim Vigness, the Grand Forks police detective who investigated the case, said he talked to the alleged victim after the warrant was issued, but wouldn’t comment about what she said.

Asked about the UND hearing that resulted in Warner’s expulsion, Vigness said, “All I can tell you is that the proceeding at the university took place before my investigation.”

Source: http://www.wday.com/event/article/id/10978/publisher_ID/30/

Success: Jimmy Choo Ltd Agrees to Remove Offensive Ad

Glenn Sacks
October 27th, 2011

Fathers and Families joined with Jane Doe Inc., The Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence this week in a joint letter to protest an advertisement from the luxury shoes, clothing, and bags company Jimmy Choo Ltd. The ad, which depicts a woman stepping on a man’s head as he lies prone on the floor, appears on their website, in print ads, and in many of their storefronts. We explained:

Unwittingly, your ad both trivializes domestic violence and makes it appear that partner abuse is acceptable. The man in the photo appears to be in fear and possibly in pain or even dead, and the woman pictured seems to be about to put her full weight on the man’s skull.

We also asked our members to call Jimmy Choo Ltd to protest. Your response has been overwhelming, and we’re pleased to report that Jimmy Choo Ltd has now agreed to remove the offensive ad from all of their stores, all print media, and their website. They emphasize that they did not mean to offend, and they apologize.

We commend Jimmy Choo Ltd for understanding our concerns and acting so quickly.

Our original letter can be seen in its entirety here.

With best regards,

Glenn Sacks, MA
Executive Director,
Fathers and Families

Toni K. Troop
Director of Communications
Jane Doe Inc., The Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence

Source: http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=20564

© 2012 SAVE: Stop Abusive and Violent Environments Privacy | Terms of Service Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha