House Majority Leader Eric Cantor holds up Violence Against Women Act

[Stattick]

LINK

Leahy explained the provision, probably the least understood of the three additions in the Senate bill: It gives tribal courts limited jurisdiction to oversee domestic violence offenses committed against Native American women by non-Native American men on tribal lands. Currently, federal and state law enforcement have jurisdiction over domestic violence on tribal lands, but in many cases, they are hours away and lack the resources to respond to those cases. Tribal courts, meanwhile, are on site and familiar with tribal laws, but lack the jurisdiction to address domestic violence on tribal lands when it is carried out by a non-Native American individual.

That means non-Native American men who abuse Native American women on tribal lands are essentially "immune from the law, and they know it," Leahy said.

The standoff over including VAWA protections for Native American women comes at a time of appallingly high levels of violence on tribal lands. One in three Native American women have been raped or experienced attempted rape, the New York Times reported in March, and the rate of sexual assault on Native American women is more than twice the national average. President Barack Obama has called violence on tribal lands "an affront to our shared humanity."

Of the Native American women who are raped, 86 percent of them are raped by non-Native men, according to an Amnesty International report. That statistic is precisely what the Senate's tribal provision targets.

Soo.... Eric Cantor is holding up a bill that had originally passed in 1994, and continued to be passed every two years afterwards without any issue, that protects battered and raped women... because he doesn't want white guys being tried in a tribal court. And in the interim, that leaves native women living on reservations unprotected by the law if they get beaten, raped, or abused by non-tribe members. Fucking disgusting.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I'm not sure how anyone else views it but that alone looks like abuse to me.

[Stattick]

I'm not sure how anyone else views it but that alone looks like abuse to me.

I'm sorry, I'm not following you. I don't know what you mean.  :-[

[Beguile's Mistress]

I'm sorry, I'm not following you. I don't know what you mean.  :-[

Holding up legislation to protect women from abuse is abusive in my book.

[Stattick]

Holding up legislation to protect women from abuse is abusive in my book.

Yeah, agreed.

[Serephino]

Apparently the right wing jackasses didn't learn a damned thing. 

[Missy]

It's amazing how stupid this is.


A human is a human is a human. If you violate a human's basic rights then you ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law by the appropriate authorities. If the ethnicity of the person in question affects your judgement then well, there's nothing nice to say to ya.

[Callie Del Noire]

In one way.. I'm understanding the concern about expanding powers.. BUT the intent.. I'm sorry.. I'd pass the act..then put in other legislation to help dove tail tribal land authorities with their peers across the border. This is a SERIOUS issue that should have been handled years ago. The jurisdiction issue and the domestic violence issue are seperate.

You can't NOT pass that. Definitely.

[Scribbles]

The additions are supported by Democrats and opposed by House Republicans, who are calling them politically driven.

So, the politicians in this political debate are opposed to the additions by their political counterparts based on the notion that they might be politically driven?

I honestly couldn't believe that to be the sole reason for opposing the bill as it just sounded so… hollow, unreasonable, and maybe even *gasp* politically driven.  So I decided to do a little digging and found this:

Link to Full Article

Republicans' biggest qualms are about provisions that make federal grants to domestic violence organizations contingent on nondiscrimination against gay, lesbian, and transgender victims; rules extending the authority of tribal courts over domestic violence matters; and a section that would provide more visas for abused undocumented women who agree to cooperate with law enforcement.

I actually wanted to believe the previously offered reason and pretend the others didn’t happen after seeing that...

Even if the suggestion to add non-discrimination is somehow redundant and politically motivated, I don't see the harm in including it. It would simply emphasize that the bill is all-inclusive, something which both parties apparently feel is important. The fact that the Republicans are intent on stonewalling a crucial bill over this non-issue just screams of “politicking” and yet they had the gall to point the finger at their opponents. At this point, the only difference between the two parties seems to be that the democrats are politicking for good reasons while the conservatives are politicking in the name of spite and elitism, especially when you consider that one of their reasons for opposing tribal law is this: “Republicans are opposing it because they don't like the idea of Native American law applying to non-tribe members.”

It has already been stated that native law can’t usurp the constitution and that due process is expected, so all concerns should be thoroughly quashed. It would help if the Republicans could give plausible issues but they’re certainly not doing anything for their case by offering naught but ominous warnings of “consequences” while brushing off all evidence as anecdotal...

[Callie Del Noire]

At this point, the only difference between the two parties seems to be that the democrats are politicking for good reasons while the conservatives are politicking in the name of spite and elitism, especially when you consider that one of their reasons for opposing tribal law is this: “Republicans are opposing it because they don't like the idea of Native American law applying to non-tribe members.”

It has already been stated that native law can’t usurp the constitution and that due process is expected, so all concerns should be thoroughly quashed. It would help if the Republicans could give plausible issues but they’re certainly not doing anything for their case by offering naught but ominous warnings of “consequences” while brushing off all evidence as anecdotal...

Thing is.. the US Government has done all they can to curtail and forstall tribal automomy while insisting that they have it. There is at least FIVE major cases that have been dragging their feet for YEARS dealing with the federal law requiring Native American children to be placed in suitable family enviroments with NATIVE American families over groups outside the tribal territories. With some states as high as 85% placement of children in NON-Tribal hand for DECADES.. it would seem apparent that there are some states not respecting it.. but the DoJ only just started investigating it.

The last thing some folks want it to better define Tribal autonomy. The fact that native Americans suffer is irrelevant for them.

[Scribbles]

Callie Del Noire,

I won't be surprised if the investigation itself goes on for a few years...

The last thing some folks want it to better define Tribal autonomy. The fact that native Americans suffer is irrelevant for them.

Sad but true, although a small part of me understands the fear of tribal autonomy, mostly from ignorance of native law among a few other reasons.

[vtboy]

What I find most mind-boggling about this is that, despite all the lip service being paid by Republicans since the recent election to remaking their image so as not to alienate women (and other groups of voters they have driven away), here they are in lockstep opposing an initiative to expand effective protection of women. This should really have been a no-brainer for them.

[Callie Del Noire]

What I find most mind-boggling about this is that, despite all the lip service being paid by Republicans since the recent election to remaking their image so as not to alienate women (and other groups of voters they have driven away), here they are in lockstep opposing an initiative to expand effective protection of women. This should really have been a no-brainer for them.

Ah but that was the election...surely you don't expect the public to care for another two years? Elections are done and besides...Native Americans on reservations DON'T VOTE IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

[vtboy]

If the GOP is ever going to undo some of the damage it has done to its standing among female voters, it has to start somewhere, and buttressing VAWA strikes me as being as good a place as any. Besides, the "optics" of the issue is not that the GOP is opposing expansion of the jurisdiction of tribal courts for any compelling reason, but simply again blowing off the needs of women as a sop to their perceived base of angry, self-absorbed white men.

In a way, I hope the Republicans continue in this vein, as they appear to be continuing to do all they can to return the House to Democratic control in '14.

[Callie Del Noire]

If the GOP is ever going to undo some of the damage it has done to its standing among female voters, it has to start somewhere, and buttressing VAWA strikes me as being as good a place as any. Besides, the "optics" of the issue is not that the GOP is opposing expansion of the jurisdiction of tribal courts for any compelling reason, but simply again blowing off the needs of women as a sop to their perceived base of angry, self-absorbed white men.

In a way, I hope the Republicans continue in this vein, as they appear to be continuing to do all they can to return the House to Democratic control in '14.

You are looking at it from one point of view.. the guys involved are looking at it as ceding more autonomy to the Native Nations..which is a BAD thing to some of them. You already have MAJOR issues dealing with mineral and water rights, and Native autonomy is a tender issue on the federal level.  They are losing TONS of revenue from the casinos, the tribes aren't backing down on water rights..which means the folks who pay to elect them aren't getting what they WANT.

So, something as minimally important as protecting women from assault takes a back seat to ensuring the government doesn't concede more autonomy to the Native Nations.. Tribal Sovereignty is a really touchy issue and a LOT of folks in the House/Senate aren't going to empower them more.

Now, me.. as much as I support the Native Sovereignty issue.. I hope the media FUCKS THEM UP on this. It's definitely something that was stupid, short sided and honestly.. to me.. setting up a clear cut precedence in law enforcement in situations like this benefits us ALL.

Personally.. I'd empower the tribal police on the level of a Federal Marshall (complete with training and budgets from the US Marshall) and work to set up jurisdictional levels from there. You have accountability and authority covered.

[Scribbles]

I've been digging a little further and found this:

Link to Full Article

Yet there is a real need for a re-evaluation of the law. The U.S. Department of Justice recently issued several reports exposing blatant instances of fraud and abuse in the use of the VAWA grant funds, but there was no discussion of how to address these problems and the need for greater accountability during the law’s reauthorization.

Additionally, the law creates duplicate programs for services already offered by other federal agencies and contains millions of dollars in grants that have not been adequately monitored by the Government Accountability Office to determine their effectiveness. Victims and Americans generally are shortchanged by such a lack of oversight.

This actually gave me pause on the whole issue. If this is true, especially the part I've bolded, then I think I can understand the stance of the Republican party a little better. I've seen instances where duplicate programs can cause massive headaches for both government as well as the victims involved. I'm going to keep digging since I'm not sure what to think at this point but I thought I should link this as some food for thought. There were a few contradictory statements when compared with the other articles which makes it difficult to confirm which is true, such as whether or not non-natives are protected by the constitution when tried in a native court. Granted, the article is old so they may have addressed these issues already plus I don't see why a person's rights wouldn't be protected by the constitution considering that it's supposed to be all-encompassing. As for the comments on fraud, I don't see why methods for combatting such crimes can't be discussed AFTER the bill has passed and suggested as amendments. Just because some are abusing a law doesn't mean that they should withold it from those who actually need it.

[Caela]

LINK

Soo.... Eric Cantor is holding up a bill that had originally passed in 1994, and continued to be passed every two years afterwards without any issue, that protects battered and raped women... because he doesn't want white guys being tried in a tribal court. And in the interim, that leaves native women living on reservations unprotected by the law if they get beaten, raped, or abused by non-tribe members. Fucking disgusting.

My question is, why the hell does this need to come for review every two years? Why is it not just done?

And I'm sorry for the politician or local boys clubs near the reservations, but if you don't want your local boys being tried in a Tribal Court, tell them to either stay the fuck off tribal lands or to fucking behave while they're there! No one should be immune from prosecution (for anything illegal) just because they are on someone else's land.

[Callie Del Noire]

My question is, why the hell does this need to come for review every two years? Why is it not just done?

And I'm sorry for the politician or local boys clubs near the reservations, but if you don't want your local boys being tried in a Tribal Court, tell them to either stay the fuck off tribal lands or to fucking behave while they're there! No one should be immune from prosecution (for anything illegal) just because they are on someone else's land.

I don't think it is that they are immune such as the tribal authorities don't have a clearly defined jurisdiction in some areas.  To me it seems cut and dried, the reservations have autonomy and sovereignty why not give the jurisdictional powers to match? Apparently to congress that is a bad thing.

[Tsenta]

Anyone think he'd try to add some sort of loophole if we drug HIM to reservations and sexually violated him?

[Oniya]

Anyone think he'd try to add some sort of loophole if we drug HIM to reservations and sexually violated him?

Well, if it's a non-Native on non-Native crime on the reservation, I think the state still has jurisdiction.  If it's a Native violating a non-Native on the reservation, then tribal court gets it.  I think that's his loophole right there.

[Callie Del Noire]

Anyone think he'd try to add some sort of loophole if we drug HIM to reservations and sexually violated him?

Well clearly if someone did that it would be a federal case.. he's ERIC CANTOR of course. Not to mention it would fall under FBI jurisdiction since it was a kidnapping.

Somedays I wish that there was a way for 'Ironic Justice' where men who pull this shit had to live a woman's life that suffers through this. I doubt they would be so cavalier.

[Oniya]

Not to mention it would fall under FBI jurisdiction since it was a kidnapping.

Missed that bit.

*goes for more coffee*

[Skynet]

One of my friends, several years ago, said that even if Republican politicians don't realize it or think of themselves this way, they're all white supremacists at heart.

At the time I thought that he was crazy to say this.

But when I see stories like this, I can understand where he's coming from, even if I disagree.

Make no mistake: the GOP as of late has been very hostile to the welfare and dignity of women and people of color, and Cantor's behavior in this case is 100% racially motivated (and quite a lot of misogyny as well).

[Stattick]

My question is, why the hell does this need to come for review every two years? Why is it not just done?

No. Fucking. Clue.

[Shjade]

Welp, guess I have a new story to link whenever I hear someone say America's not a racist country.