Kangaroo or Obama Court

I don’t know the origins of the term “Kangaroo Court”, but I certainly know what it means.  But for the avoidance of doubt, according to Wikipedia, a Kangaroo Court is a:

judicial tribunal or assembly that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides.

Perhaps the time has come to update Wikipedia and various dictionaries for the evolution of language and custom.  Perhaps it is time to update the term “Kangaroo Court” to “Obama Court” in recognition of the damage to law and justice perpetrated by the Obama Administration through its April 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter to American universities.

Using its financial leverage with US universities, the US government “encouraged” the establishment of sexual assault tribunals where guilt was determined on a “preponderance of evidence” (50% plus a feather).  But these tribunals went beyond this.  In many cases:

  • the accused were not permitted to see expert reports;
  • the accused were not allowed to confront their accuser; and
  • the accused were not allowed representations.

under the threat of losing federal funds, many did even more than what was required. Some schools chose not to give accused students the complaint against them, notice of the factual basis of charges, the evidence gathered, or the identities of witnesses. Some barred counsel from attending hearings or disallowed counsel from speaking at hearings. Some prohibited the accused from asking questions of the accuser or witnesses, even through intermediaries; often the accuser participated in hearings behind a partition so that she would not see or be seen by the accused. Even when found responsible for sexual misconduct, the accused was sometimes not allowed to have a copy of the investigative report.

Accusers were also sometimes permitted to appeal not guilty findings.  So much for double jeopardy.  But hey.  Justice eh.

It should also be remembered that the accused and their accusers were generally aged 18-22; many of whom were not able to legally purchase alcohol in many of the states in which they resided.

But why all of this?  The Dear Colleague letter was sent in response to claims of extensive sexual assaults on American college campuses.  In fact, the letter itself stated that:

a report prepared for the National Institute of Justice found that about 1 in 5 women are victims of completed or attempted sexual assault while in college.

Yes. The claim is that 20% of women are victims of sexual assaults while in college.  This despite the US FBI reporting that in 2011:

The rate of forcible rapes in 2011 was estimated at 52.7 per 100,000 female inhabitants.

Or 0.5% of the nation female population.

Given the incredibly large difference in sexual assaults on women in the general population (0.5%) as recorded by the FBI versus college population (20%) as suggested by the National Institute of Justice, what did the Obama Administration do?  Did they urgently deploying police or security to address the 40x times higher rate of sexual assault in US universities?  No.

The Obama Administration sent a letter.  A letter that led universities to set up “these” sexual assault tribunals so that, presumably, guilty numbers more closely meet assault claim numbers.  They were encouraged to set up extra-judicial systems and processed on threat of losing federal government funding.

Fortunately the new US Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has indicated that she will overhaul this insanity.  The response to DeVos’ plan to look into overhauling (but not actually do anything yet) the process was extraordinary:

Nita Chaudhary, co-founder of UltraViolet, a leading national women’s advocacy group, said the idea that there needs to be more of a focus on the rights of the accused would be “laughable if it weren’t so terrifying and outright dangerous.”

“With one-in-four women sexually assaulted while in college — we are facing a national rape epidemic on our campuses, and today’s announcement makes clear that Betsy DeVos and Donald Trump are more concerned with protecting perpetrators than the survivors they sexually assaulted,” she said in a statement.

Note the claimed increase in college sexual assaults from 20% to 25% but also:

“This is another cruel, heartless move from the Discrimination Administration,” said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, in a statement following the secretary’s remarks.

But before Australian’s think such things can only happen in America, consider this.  The first step in this process was to make American universities deeply depended upon government money thus making them easily “influence-able”, or would that be “nudge-able”.

The second step was to produce research from an “independent” government agency claiming massive levels of college sexual assault.  The third and final step was to leverage such research and financial support to implement a pre-determined agenda.

Let’s consider Australia then.

Are Australian universities highly depended on government funding and hence government influence?  Tick.  Have a look at the budget papers.

Is there research (if government funded better) that suggests that there is a plague of sexual assaults on Australian university campuses?  Tick.  The Australian Human Rights Commission undertook a study of 39 Australian Universities and found that:

one in five of them had experienced sexual harassment in a university setting

One in five, or 20%.  There must be something magical about that ratio.

Has there been a massive deployment of police or security or medical workers to address this significant proportion of sexual harassment on Australian universities settings versus the general population as suggested by the Human Rights Commission report?  Nope.

Have there been discussions within the walls of the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training?  Dunno.  But wait and see.  There is a Labor-Green government coming.

Excuse me while I take the fetal position in my safe space.

Follow I Am Spartacus on Twitter at @Ey_am_Spartacus

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Kangaroo or Obama Court

  1. Motelier

    I wonder what the numbers of rape victims in the Australian population are.

    Bueller, anyone?

  2. I am Spartacus

    I wonder what the numbers of rape victims in the Australian population are.

    According to the ABS, 23,052 Sexual Assaults in Australia in 2016.

  3. classical_hero

    Even in war the percentage of rape isn’t that high. Are the left saying that American colleges worse than armed conflict? Why do women go to college at such large numbers?

  4. Why is it that every leftist brain fart in the USA gets picked up in Oz withing the following 12 months.

    Thats probably a rhetorical question.

  5. Muddy

    The key is precautionary restraint and and pre-offence compensation.

    Give every female and wannafem uni student free capsicum spray and lawful permission to use it up to six times weekly on any non-fem uni student, staff member, or visitor on university grounds. These cannisters, and the training to use them, will be funded by a levy on male university students.

    Pre-offence compensation involves a redistribution of privmale income or assets to the female or wannafem uni population in anticipation of the inevitable moment when the privileged male sexually assaults them. This PreOffCom is additional to the normal criminal, civil, academic, and reputational consequences of male privilege.

    For the purposes of the PreCaut and PreOffCom principles, refusal to volunteer for capsicum spray victim training is classified as sexual assault, as is covering the eyes while being sprayed in a class or tutorial for spreading one’s knees wider than 15cm.

    I am available as a consultant, and I can identify as any gender you care to name. Preferably one with great breasts.

  6. cui bono

    ‘Lucy and I will be deploring sexual assault’

  7. Herodotus

    They don’t need the threat of money being withdrawn any more. The nutcases who are beating up all these issues de jour will do it anyway. Peak stupid is coming over the horizon.

  8. manalive

    As I understand the law the police have an obligation to investigate and charge if they find sufficient evidence even if no formal complaint is made, laziness notwithstanding.
    If those kangaroo courts were to operate here I’m wondering how findings of guilt would be treated by the police.
    Wouldn’t a similar kangaroo court operation lay the universities and individual complainants open to law suits and huge compensation?

  9. jupes

    One in five, or 20%. There must be something magical about that ratio.

    Nah, nothing magic about that. 20% is just an obviously made up figure.

    There is only one truly authentic figure that cannot be questioned. Ever.

    Hence if someone told me that 97% of women are raped on campus, I would believe them.

  10. 2dogs

    according to Wikipedia

    Wikipedia has a weird kind of bee in its bonnet about the term “Kangaroo Court”. There is a popular conjecture that the original kangaroo court was in fact R v MacArthur 1808 NSWSC 1 , the court case that triggered the Rum Rebellion. It’s not far fetched as the case certainly fits, and there is no prior use of the term before MacArthur’s case.

    But the Wikipedia admins will react stridently at the suggestion of it, wiping out even the suggestion of it from the talk page, let alone the main article.

  11. J.H.

    Socialism is the Ideology of deceit.
    Creating “Victim status” is essential for the Socialist agenda. It allows them to declare their critics and detractors as enemies and to create a sense of crisis among their followers that justifies any violence that they may perpetrate upon the enemy.

    With Socialism there is no debate, only revolutionary action and slogans. Free speech is an anathema to them. Instead they fill the public space with lies and violence and allow no discussion to examine it.

  12. Empire GTHO Phase III

    The US has been governed unconstitutionally for some time – long before Barry Obongo arrived.

    The descent into the inferno isn’t a bad thing. The madness can only be resolved through force.

    May the force be with you.

  13. John Comnenus

    How come the Obama admin can send a letter threatening to withhold funding over alleged criminality and no one says a word? Everyone rolls over and complies? But if Trump threatens to withhold funds from sanctuary city police departments if they don’t enforce US immigration laws then the whole world and the judiciary goes into meltdown claiming the latter is unconstitutional.

    The answer to my question is obvious, most people in the USA realise that their courts are oppressive political operations that punish those who transgress the prevailing ideology of the public sector (not necessarily the government). This is rapidly becoming the case in Australia, just check Bernard Gaynor’s right to freedom of speech or religion if his part time employer disagrees with him airing that view in a private capacity.

    There is no such thing as the Deep State, governments around the Western World have grown and given their public sectors massive regulatory power. What Donald Trump has exposed is that the bureaucracy has amassed so much power it runs the government, picking and choosing what laws to comply with and ignoring or blocking the elected government when it feels the need.

    It is not the Deep State, it is the all powerful bureaucratic state. The modern senior bureaucrats think they are feudal barons who want constrain Trimp and elected governments just as the barons constrained King John through the Magna Carta.

    Simply put the modern, all pervasive and all powerful bureaucracy is not inclined to cede power to an elected government it doesn’t support. As I have written many times before, the public sector is the most powerful vested interest in the country and is out of control with far too much power and money.

  14. Zatara

    …. a report prepared for the National Institute of Justice found that about 1 in 5 women are victims of completed or attempted sexual assault while in college.

    Since when did colleges or universities rate their own police forces and legal systems?

    Having campus security I have no problem with. Empowering them as actual law officers and making them answerable to the school administration I have a major problem with. Setting up a university kangaroo court system to hear anything other than parking fines and usurping the functions and authority of the real legal system defies belief.

    So lets say this kiddie court coerces Bruce to face up and give evidence regarding sexual assault or rape allegations against him by threatening to boot him out if he doesn’t (which is the only possible reason anyone would). What happens next? If he is found guilt do they send him to the school dungeon? If he is found innocent and the supposed victim pushes it does he now find himself facing those same charges in front of a real court (after he has given evidence in kiddie court which will of course be used against him in the real one)?

    The principle of double jeopardy wouldn’t apply of course because the kiddie court has no validity.

    The bottom line is that schools don’t have the authority to constitute courts of law and any report of sexual assault or rape should be made to and investigated by the real police, not the campus security clowns. The Attorneys General should be cracking down on this rediculous farce immediately.

  15. Zatara

    …. a report prepared for the National Institute of Justice found that about 1 in 5 women are victims of completed or attempted sexual assault while in college.

    To be clear, actual sexual assault is a serious crime and should be reported immediately to the police. The real police, not the campus clowns.

    That being said if the left insists on pinning their case to survey results it is important to find out exactly what the respondents were asked.

    In point of fact, the axe-grinders who write the surveys invariably write questions that confuse the issue by raising simple unwanted attention to the status of the crime of sexual assault. Answer one of those unwanted attention questions in the affirmative and your survey just got added to the list of supposed sexual assaults. Somehow those questions are never published in the press releases that the fudged stats do. It’s not hard to see why.

    The US DoJ found that:

    The NISVS and CSA (two major studies) collect data on incidents of unwanted sexual contact that may not rise to a level of criminal behavior

    Which quite obviously means not sexual assault much less rape and should never have been reported as such. But hey, anything to make the numbers work right?

Comments are closed.