Mediaboss Marketing

From Judge Ezra Friedlander's opinion, joined by Judge Paul Mathias, in R.W. v. J.W., decided by the Indiana Court of Appeals Friday:

R.W. appeals from the entry of a permanent protective order against him, contending that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the petition for an order of protection filed by J.W., a woman with whom he was in a romantic relationship, and by finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the legal conclusion to issue the order. We affirm.

To sum up the evidence before the trial court and in the words of the trial court, "[s]ome time between August 10th and September 11th the matter blew up and all of the parties involved, [K.B.], [R.W.] and [J.W.] were saying nasty things to each other, back and forth imploring the other to leave them alone." [K.B. was an acquaintance of J.W., and an ex-girlfriend of R.W.] The evidence and inferences therefrom supporting the issuance of the protective order in favor of J.W. was that K.B. was with R.W. after his relationship with J.W. soured. When they were together, R.W. had shared with J.W. his plans to send the video of a nude K.B. to the man she was then dating. A part of the plan involved creating a new account on social media through which to reach that man at work. J.W. counseled against R.W.'s plan.

R.W. left a threatening voicemail for J.W., which made J.W. feel threatened and terrified. R.W. made several attempts by various means to contact J.W.'s husband. During a period of time where K.B. was with R.W. in Chicago, she [presumably K.B.-EV] downloaded semi-nude and nude pictures of J.W. from R.W.'s password-protected phone. She then sent them to J.W. and R.W. with her own disparaging commentary about what was depicted, further adding commentary purported to be from B.O. {a man with whom J.W. had previously had a sexual relationship}.

R.W. contacted J.W. to inform her that "somehow" K.B. had come into possession of those photographs. He did nothing to stop any action by K.B. despite this awareness. K.B. feigned sympathy for J.W., adding that she did not want those photographs to come into the hands of J.W.'s four young sons or husband or be disseminated to her children's school and through the City of Valparaiso even though "someone" had told her that those actions were a possibility.

Just prior to the hearing set for the Illinois protective order, J.W. discovered that a Bumble account had been created with her email address containing pictures of her, one of which she had only sent to R.W. and the other of which had to be taken down from the account. The words used in that account to describe J.W. bore a striking similarity to the language used by K.B. when discussing her theory that J.W. had herpes and that her behavior was trashy or tramp-like.

At the hearing on J.W.'s protective order request, R.W. refused to answer 32 separate questions pertaining mostly to how K.B. came into possession of the pictures of J.W. that were meant only for R.W. and the creation and existence of the Bumble account, citing his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. "Although the refusal to testify in a civil case cannot be used against the one asserting the privilege in a subsequent criminal proceeding, the privilege against self-incrimination does not prohibit the trier of fact in a civil case from drawing adverse inferences from a witness'[s] refusal to testify."

The trial court correctly found from the evidence and the inferences from the evidence that "there is no evidence that R.W. tried to stop or block [K.B.'s] harassment or stalking behavior utilizing or threatening to use the photos against [J.W.]," and correctly concluded that "like [K.B.], [R.W.] was engaged in bringing harassment to bear on [J.W.]" There was more than sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact which, in turn, support the conclusions of law in favor of granting J.W.'s petition for a permanent protective order against R.W.

And here's Judge Terry Crone's concurrence:

I agree with the affirmance of the protective order against Rafer Weigel, but I write separately because I respectfully disagree with my colleagues' decision to refer to Weigel by his initials instead of his name.

No statute, court rule, or court policy entitles Weigel to anonymity. In fact, pursuant to the Rules on Access to Court Records adopted by the Indiana Supreme Court, Weigel's name is presumptively accessible to the public. See Ind. Access to Court Records Rule 4(A) ("A Court Record is accessible to the public except as provided in Rule 5."). Some of the stated purposes of those rules are to "[c]ontribute to public safety" and "[p]romote governmental accountability and transparency[.]"These overlap with the stated purposes of the Civil Protection Order Act, which was enacted by the Indiana General Assembly "to promote the: (1) protection and safety of all victims of domestic or family violence in a fair, prompt, and effective manner; (2) protection and safety of all victims of harassment in a fair, prompt, and effective manner; and (3) prevention of future domestic violence, family violence, and harassment."

As described in lurid detail above, Weigel threatened and publicly humiliated J.W., who sought and obtained a protective order against him. Weigel has challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting that order. If we had ruled in his favor, he could have petitioned to expunge all records relating to the protective order pursuant to Indiana Code Chapter 34-26-7.5. But since we have affirmed the trial court's determination that Weigel harassed J.W., I can think of no principled reason why this Court should shield his identity from the public.

Indeed, naming the perpetrator of such depraved acts could only contribute to public safety, promote governmental transparency and accountability (by this Court and by any law enforcement agency that might have occasion to enforce the protective order, respectively), and prevent future harassment of J.W. and others.

For a media account of the underlying scandal, see the Chicago Tribune (Sophie Sherry); Weigel had been a Chicago TV news anchor.

Go here to read the rest:
Indiana Judges Disagree: Should Targets of Protective Orders Be Pseudonymous? - Reason

As ballot counting in most states winds to a close (except in laggardly Alaska, Illinois, New York, Maryland, and a few others), a striking pattern has already emerged: President Donald Trump, in state after state, received virtually the same percentage of the vote as he did in 2016.

In swing state Arizona, where demographics are changing and Republicans are losing their grip on statewide politics, the incumbent stands at 49.0 percent of the vote, compared to his 2016 total of48.1. In battleground Michigan, after four years of intense campaigning, Trump's 2016 result of 47.5 percent was fed feet-first into the woodchipper of 2020 and came out the other end as47.9. By late Tuesday night, the expressed preference for Trump in more than half the country had changed in four years by less than a single percentage point.

What did change were two overlapping and interrelated sets of numbers. The share of third-party/independent presidential voters plummeted by nearly four percentage points since 2016, from 5.7 to 1.8, while Joe Biden exceeded Hillary Clinton's haul nationally by 2.6 percentage points and climbing steadily, as the populous blue states continue to pad his lead.

So while Michigan, for example, was delivering essentially the same results for Trump as four years ago, the Great Lakes State was subtracting 3.6 percentage points from third-party candidates, and adding 3.2 to Biden (that's a 90 percent "Excess Vote" rating, for those who enjoy made-up stats). Arizona has a similar story: down a combined 4.6 for the marginal names, up 4.3 for the Democrat; 92 percent E.V. All over the country, the president was able to bring out more of his voters, but with only a handful of exceptions was unable to expand on his core share of support by persuading fence-sitters to choose the Republican side.

Pre-election polls predicted this2016 third-party voters, and specifically Libertarians (who made up 57 percent of the third-party electorate that year), repeatedly said that a majority of them were going straight, and preferred Biden to Trump by more than two to one. There were 7.8 million third-party voters last time, and just 2.7 million this time, so any strong lean by the remaining 5 million-plus was always going to dwarf whatever impact partisans may attribute to "spoilers."

Some Republicans have been mad online that Libertarian presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen's vote totals exceeded Biden's margin over Trump in Arizona (by 1.12 percentage points), Georgia (by 0.95), Wisconsin (0.54), and Pennsylvania (0.47). But those numbers pale in comparison to the products of this formula: Biden's percentage point gains over Clinton, minus Trump 2020's gains over Trump 2016, minus the drop in the third-party vote.

The president-elect trounced Trump in that category by 3.93 percentage points so far in Arizona, 2.35 in Georgia (actually more, but I'll explain in a moment), 1.40 in Pennsylvania, and 1.39 in Wisconsin. Third-party voters in 2016 had more impact on the two-party race in 2020 than any third-party voters in 2020 ever could.

The Georgia count is interesting on two fronts. One, it's a reminder that these aren't simplistically reassigned votes from 2016; every electorate is different, and there were certainly many voters who went straight from Republican to Democrat without making a pit stop in LibertarianGreenConstitutionKanyeLand. So in fact Biden in the Peach State is up 3.88 percentage points over Hillary Clinton, and Trump is down 1.54 from last time, the latter a pretty unusual occurrence outside of the northeast. Since the third-party decline in Georgia was just 2.35 points, I awarded only that amount of excess to Biden, but there are definitely some other significant factors affecting and accelerating that change.

Georgia is also one of the handful of states whose 2016 third-party electorate was overwhelmingly (about 85 percent) Libertarian. A very curious thing happened in such jurisdictions: Compared to the rest of the country, their decline this year in third-party voting was lower, and their Excess Vote for Biden was higher.

In Oklahoma, for example, all 5.75 percent of third-party voters in 2016 went for Gary Johnson. In 2020, the state's third-party decline of 59 percent, down to 2.33 percentage points, was actually one of the lowest in the union (the national average being closer to 68 percent). Still, Trump got almost no measurable bump from third-partiers coming back in from the cold, finishing at 65.37 percent of the vote, compared to 65.32 in 2016. Similar stories can be told in Indiana and South Dakota.

What's the analytical upshot, even with the caveat that we're still blindly groping the elephant of this election? One is that voters for the Libertarian Party (L.P.) have greater propensity at this moment to stick: The L.P. lost 64 percent of its voting share from 2016, compared to 73 percent for the Constitution Party and 78 percent for the Green Party.

The other is that, at least in the unusual third-party spike year of 2016, people who formerly voted for Libertarians (which, it's always important to remember, outnumbered actual members of the party four years ago by around 5 to 1), are not just Republicans who got high for an election only to sober up next time. They're more loyal to the quixotic dream than voters of other small parties, and they have demonstrated zero propensity to prefer the GOP. At least in this election, with this president.

To the extent that ex-Libertarian voters pulled the lever this time for Biden, it wasn't because of his proposals on spending, taxes, regulation, Section 230, the Supreme Court, or a hundred other things. If there is any libertarian case for Biden, it's situational, and that situation ends on January 20. All foolish talk of a "mandate" should include a clause about how the former vice president probably couldn't have gotten over the hump without Gary Johnson's voters. Good luck keeping those types in the coalition.

Every minute of every day is filled with peopleincluding not a small number who describe themselves as at least somewhat "libertarian"telling you that it's A Time for Choosing, time to put on your big boy pants, time to declare your unwavering opposition to Party X or Party Y. Don't you recognize authoritarianism and/or statism when you see it?

One of the enduring if low-key quirks of this election is that there appears to be a cat-herd of at least 1 percent of the population who appear unswayed by such appeals, with an extra 2 percent who don't exhibit reliably pigeonholeable behavior. That, by definition, will be frustrating to most people passionate about politics. But from my admittedly marginal perspective, if the two major parties are going to rebuke most libertarian ideas, better to have the swing vote wearing a capital-L on its sweater.

Read more:
Trump Lost in Part Because 2016 Third-Party Voters Heavily Preferred Biden - Reason

Several weeks ago, Donald Trump threatenedto blockadeNew York, New Jerseyand Connecticut, ostensiblyto protect the rest of the country from the coronavirus pandemic. Trump soon pivoted away from that position.

Most mainstreamobservers and other members of the American news media mocked Trump for his threats and took them (again) as evidence of his ignorance about the Constitution and the rule of law. ButTrump was testing norms and boundaries,with the goal of shattering them later.

Last week, DonaldTrump took the next step in his escalating war against democracy andthe rule of law,commanding his cult membersto"liberate"Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia from the "stay-at-home" public health measures that have been enacted in an effort to slow down the rate of infection and death from the coronavirus pandemic.

Trump's threats against state governors isa violation ofthe presidential oath of office. Legal scholars and other experts have also suggested thatDonald Trump's words of incitementcome close tothe definition of treason in Article III of the Constitution, "Levying war against the United States."

Mary McCord, a former acting assistant attorney general, addressed this in the Washington Post:

President Trump incited insurrection Friday against the duly elected governors of the states of Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia. Just a day after issuingguidancefor re-opening America that clearly deferred decision-making to state officials as it must under our Constitutional order the president undercut his own guidance by calling for criminal acts against the governors for not opening fast enough.

Trump tweeted, "LIBERATE MINNESOTA!" followed immediately by "LIBERATE MICHIGAN!" and then "LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!" This follows Wednesday's demonstration in Michigan, in whicharmed protestorssurrounded the state capitol building in Lansing chanting "Lock her up!" in reference to Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and "We will not comply," in reference to her extension of the state's coronavirus-related stay-at-home order. Much smaller and less-armed groups had on Thursday protested on the state capitol grounds inRichmond,Va., and outside thegovernor's mansionin St. Paul, Minn.

"Liberate" particularly when it's declared by the chief executive of our republic isn't some sort of cheeky throwaway. Its definition is "to set at liberty," specifically "to free (something, such as a country) from domination by a foreign power." It's an echo of the "Second Amendment remedies" rhetoric of the 2010 midterm election. It's clearly a violation of federalism principles, and it's quite possibly a crime underfederal law. And insurrection or treason against state government is a crime in Virginia, Michigan and Minnesota, as well as most states. Assembling with others to train or practice using firearms or other explosives for use during a civil disorder is also acrimeinmanystates. But the president himself is calling for just that.

Donald Trump's foot soldiers haveobediently followed their Great Leader's commands. By the hundreds, Trump's cult members have descended upon state capitals across the country. Their "protests" are actually staged events paid for and organized by individuals and groups connected to the family of Education Secretary Betsy DeVosand other major right-wing funders.

Nonetheless, these fake "protests" are an effective political tool because the mainstreamnews media, beaten down by the Republicans Party after many years of gaslighting and abuse, treat such dangerous buffoonery as legitimate reflections of the public mood rather than as extensions of the Trump administration'spsychological operations campaign.

At these "rallies" Trump's cultists proudly display symbols of their commitment, such as flags emblazoned with his name and white supremacist symbols ofrebellion and insurrection. Armed right-wing militia groups are also participating in thesestaged anti-"stay-in-place" protests. Many of the protesters have brandished assault rifles and other weapons.

White privilege takes many forms. Nonwhites and Muslims would neverbeallowed to behave in such a threatening manner. If hundreds of camouflage-wearing, heavily armed, black and brown people and/or Muslims (or "socialists," for that matter) gathered in state capitals across the country with the goal of threatening, intimidatingand inciting armed rebellion against state governments, police and other law enforcement agencies would have likely used lethal force.

Tim Wise, who is one of America's leading antiracism activists and scholars, and the author of such bestselling books as "White Like Me,""Dear White America"and "Under the Affluence," has described Donald Trump as a "human opioid" of white privilege, white rageand white racism.

In turn, Trump's supporters are eager drug addicts. They are evidentlywilling to risk their lives to show their love and support for him by attending his human coronavirus petri-dish rallies.

As part of an ongoing series of conversations here at Salon, I recently spoke with Tim Wise about what the coronavirus pandemicrevealsabout the deadly consequences of white privilege and other forms of social inequality in America. Wise also explains how Donald Trump, as a white man (and a Republican),benefits from a level of presumed competence and intelligence not afforded to black and brown people. Moreover, if Donald Trump were notwhitehe would long ago have been impeached and removed from office.

Wise also discusses how Nazis and other fascists and right-wing extremists are taking advantage of the coronavirus crisis to advance their war on America'smultiracial democracy.

You can also listen to my conversation with Tim Wise on my podcast "The Truth Report"or through the player embedded below.

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

I took a walk yesterday and I was dutifully following the rule to stay six feet away from other people. I then had a realization: As a black man in America, I am already conditioned to having to obey all the new rules of social distancing forcedby the coronavirus pandemic. When I walk down the street, especially when it is dark outside, very often white people try to avoid me.

People of color have to deal with attributional ambiguity all the time in terms of trying to understand other people's behavior. What was that look? What was that clutching of the purse or the briefcase? Why did they get off the elevator when I got on it?Black and brown people know what it is like to be looked at by white people as carrying some type of contagion. For the most part gay white folks during the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic being a notable exception white folks are not used to being viewed as potential carriersof something awful.

White folks are not used to people of color moving away from them or looking at them funny. There are now many millions of people in American right now who perhaps for the first time in their lives are having a type of existential crisis.

They have to ask themselves, "If I go outside will I be safe? Can I go drivearound? Can I walk or jog around the neighborhood? Can I go to the store and be safe?" Now, those are alllegitimate questions in the middle of a pandemic.

But of course, the irony is that millions of Americans ask those same questions every day, with or without a virus breathing down their neck. People of color, especially black people, have to wonder, "Can I go for a jog around the neighborhood?" Why that question? Because black and brown people have to deal with the fact that someone in that neighborhood might call the police on them.

Can I just go driving around? Well, not if I'm a person of color because I may become a victim of racial profiling by the police and that can escalate tome being shot and killed or otherwise abused. Women must ask themselves about public space and where they can go safely because of the reality of sexual assault and rape culture.

The coronavirus is an opportunity for people with privilege,and American society as a whole,to broaden their empathy for others.

Will you have a job? Will you have health care? Will it be affordable? Are you going to die? These are the things that lots of people think about all the time. When this crisis is over, many Americans will still be thinking about those questions because of social inequality and how they are living it.

You have described Donald Trump as a "human opioid" of white privilege, racism and anger. Watching Trump's negligent and malicious response to the coronavirus, and the enduring love and support from his cult-like supporters, has proven the wisdom of your observation.If Donald Trump werea black man or a Latino or a woman he would have been removed from office several years ago.

Only white people, especially white men, are allowed to be as incompetent as Donald Trump and still remain in positions of power. Donald Trump and his administration's foot-dragging in response to the coronavirus was intended to keep his poll numbers up. It was intended to not scare the markets. It was intended to put a happy face on things, but all of that obviously delayed much-needed testing. It delayed the rollout of the economic package which just passed. As a practical matter, Trump's incompetence delayed getting money to people who desperately need it. And of course, Trump's incompetence delayed getting the masks, ventilatorsand other equipment that was needed to save lives.

Tens of thousands of white people are going to die because of Donald Trump's incompetence. And much of that incompetence and delay intaking the necessary steps to prepare the country to better deal with the virus was connected to his xenophobia and his racism, with his obsessions with China and the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border as somehow being responsible for the coronavirus pandemic in the United States, or a way of stopping it from coming here.

A good number of those people who are going to die are Trump's voters. It is very obvious that Donald Trump and his administration are willing to kill his own base of supporters in order to try to win re-election in 2020.

Why is there still so much shock and denial among the American people and the mainstream news media about the Trump regime's cruelty and malevolence? For example, Trump and his servants have been denying needed medical equipment to Democrat-controlled cities and other parts of the country. People are dying as a result of that decision. Trump and his inner circle have been profit-seeking and engaging in other corrupt behavior during the pandemic. Trump and his sycophants have consistently put Trump's re-election as being more important than the American people's lives.They want people to go back to work and risk death. None of this should be a surprise, given America's history of violence against nonwhite people. Why the cries of, "This is not who we are!" when in so many ways itis?

That can all be explained by the country's broken educational system. Obviously, most people really don't know the history of the United States. Moreover, they don't even know the most basic contours and realities of the way that this country has actually operated for most of its history.

It's also motivated reasoning. If we start with the premise that most people are decent, then that makes it harder to look into the face of America's ugliness. There is also the question of being implicated in that ugliness and injustice. Denying those facts makes it easier to function.

If you're white, especially, and if you're middle-class or above and you've got health care while other people do not, then you are implicated in an unjust system.

As James Baldwin said, "Once you acknowledge the truth, now you're on the hook."White folks really don't want to be on the hook. So it's easier to deny what all of our senses are telling us. Donald Trump is so bold with his racism and racial resentment that he makes it harder for white people to deny the reality of this country's past and present.

The Age of Trump and the coronavirus is another opportunity for white supremacists and other right-wing extremists and terrorists to engage inevil. The SPLC has documented a 50% growth in the number of so-called "white nationalist" groups in the United States between 2018and 2019. A white supremacist terrorist was plotting to blow up a hospital in Kansas City where coronavirus patients are being treated. Nazis have been caught planning to use the coronavirus as a biological weapon to kill Jews, Muslims, nonwhites, FBI agents and others. The news media haslargely been silent about these happenings.

Sothese Nazis are saying that they're going to go get coronavirus and then give it to Jewish people. Let's imagine for moment that a group of Muslims in this country were caught plotting that they were going to do the same thing to Jewish people or the FBI.

They would all have been rounded up. It would be on the news constantly. If a person of color had threatened to blow up that hospital in Kansas City, it would have been on the news 24/7. By largely ignoring these stories about Nazis and other white supremacists and right-wing extremists, the American news media is allowing these groups to flourish. The coronavirus quarantine is necessary for public safety, but it is also an opportunity for far-right extremists to radicalize more people, especially young people online who are not in school and participating in other activities.

Many of these right-wing extremists are "accelerationists" who want civilization to collapse. They are waiting for society to fall apart. They want America and the West to run out of food. They also want to target the country's infrastructure. The mainstream news media is underreporting and therefore diminishing that very real threat during the coronavirus crisis.

Let's engage in a thought experiment: Ifwhite folks had realized in the 1960s that racism and white supremacy hurts them too, what would America look like today? Specifically, if white Americans had had such an epiphany,how would the country be positioned to respond to the coronavirus pandemic right now?

Many things would be different in the United States and the world. Of course, there would be some people still locked in the cult mentality of racism. They would not change. But in terms of positive changes, there would be a more robust social welfare system than the piecemeal one that exists today with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The Great Society was greatly limited by anti-black animus and racism.

The social democracy that the New Deal tried to create would also be broader and more inclusive, and therefore much stronger and more resolute in the present and future. All the federal programs that white people love, such as the GI Bill and FHA and VA home loan programs which basically created the white American middle class, would have been expanded to more fully include black and brown Americans.

The United States would also have a much better and more robust public health care system if white racism and racial resentment had not been used by conservatives and those allied with them to gut the government's infrastructure and the very idea that government can do good in the world.

Especially worth highlighting in this moment of fake right-wing "populism" is how the pain that working-class white people have been experiencing in the last 50 years about their jobs, the economyand their lives more generallywould have been greatly limited in a true multiracial social democracy. There are many positive changes which would have made for a better, more affluent, prosperous, healthyand safe American society, if not for the power of white supremacy.

See the original post:
Tim Wise on Trump, the coronavirus and the pandemic of ...

Ukraine's move to impose economic restrictions on Belarus Lukashenko branded "shameful copycatting the European Union and the U.S."

REUTERS

Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus has threatened Ukraine with sanctions in response to measures recently taken by the Ukrainian side.

Lukashenko has suggested in his interview with the national and foreign media that President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky imposed sanctions against Belarus under pressure from the West, BELTA reports.

"All this wagging by your president, Zelensky, all his twists and turns are shameful copycatting of the European Union and the U.S.," Lukashenko said. Had the Western powers not imposed sanctions on Bealrus, Zelensky "wouldn't have gone for it either," Lukashenko suggested.

Read alsoDemocracy March in Belarus: Rights watchdogs report mass arrests (Photo)"This is humiliation of the Ukrainian people, to say the least," said Lukashenko.

He noted that Belarus could close the border for Ukrainian goods, including for raw materials.

"You watch out because we could shut the border for goods coming from the Ukrainian territory. And then you wont be able to supply products to our market, you won't even be able to process Ukrainian products in Belarus before supplying them to other markets, primarily the Eurasian one," Lukashenko said.

He also criticized the Ukrainian media for their coverage of Belarus developments.

Read alsoEU slaps personal sanctions on Lukashenko, entourage"You are covering these events in Belarus the way even the West and the U.S. aren't covering them. Why do you need all this? We have always cared about you, all these Maidans, and so on ... And you are starting to break and slam us. How come? Peopls like Lukashenko and Zelensky come and go, but nations remain. Why spoil relations?" Lukashenko said.

Author: UNIAN

Read the original:
Lukashenko warns Ukraine of sanctions, criticizes Zelensky for playing along with West - UNIAN

Survivors of domestic violence in eastern Ukraine are not able to seek protection against violence against them due to the governments ineffective response, Amnesty International said today in a report on the hidden but escalating problem of domestic and sexual violence against women in the region.

Based on six field missions conducted by Amnesty International, Not a private matter highlights multiple flaws in a system aimed at protecting survivors, particularly women, of domestic and sexual violence. The situation is worsened by devastating social and economic crises, access to weaponry, and trauma created by the ongoing armed conflict between the government of Ukraine and Russia-backed separatists.

It is desperate that women, whose lives are already severely affected by trauma and destruction caused by the conflict, find themselves without recourse to assistance and failed by the authorities who have a responsibility to protect them from domestic and sexual violence, said Oksana Pokalchuk, Director of Amnesty International Ukraine.

Women living in conflict-affected eastern Ukraine do not feel safe neither in public nor at home.

Women living in conflict-affected eastern Ukraine do not feel safe neither in public nor at home

Amnesty International accessed the government-controlled territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions between January and November 2019. The organisation has had no access to the separatist-controlled areas, which fall beyond the scope of the report.

Official statistics on domestic violence, however unreliable and incomplete, show a spike of registered cases in the last three years. In 2018, there was a 76% increase in reported cases in Donetsk region and a 158% increase in Luhansk region, compared to the average of the previous three years.

Government initiatives fail to effectively address domestic violence

Over the last three years, Ukraine has adopted new legislation and institutional frameworks relating to gender-based violence, generally in line with international human rights law. These include the landmark 2018 Law on Prevention and Combating Domestic Violence, the introduction of emergency protection orders and shelters, and special police units trained to address situations of domestic violence.

Yet the new laws and initiatives are often poorly implemented, while the country remains no closer to ratifying the Council of Europes Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the Istanbul Convention).

Police are still reluctant to register complaints of survivors of domestic violence and widespread impunity deters many victims from speaking out.

Police are still reluctant to register complaints of survivors of domestic violence and widespread impunity deters many victims from speaking out

In 10 out of the 27 cases of domestic violence documented in the report, women didnt report the violence they had suffered to police because they believed the authorities would not respond adequately, if at all.

In one case, a pregnant woman was beaten by her husband, a serving soldier at the time, but did not file an official complaint. She decided it was not worth it after being pressured by the military command to withdraw a previous complaint (when her husband broke her nose), so as not to embarrass her husband.

Survivors left unprotected and at risk

Ukraines new legislation gives police officers the authority to issue so-called emergency protection orders, which prohibit alleged perpetrators from entering and staying on the premises a survivor may reside in, and from contacting the survivor for 10 days. These powers in the cases Amnesty documented are rarely enacted and if they are, are not effectively enforced.

Despite positive developments in national legislation, gaps in protection remain. In Ukraine, domestic violence falls both under administrative and criminal legislation. Currently, unless a perpetrator has accrued two administrative penalties for domestic violence, criminal prosecutions cannot be initiated.

In addition, members of the military and police are exempt from administrative proceedings in courts of general jurisdiction, which effectively serves to protect them from criminal prosecution for domestic violence.

Members of the military and police are exempt from administrative proceedings in courts of general jurisdiction, which effectively serves to protect them from criminal prosecution for domestic violence

Oksana Mamchenko suffered physical, psychological and economic violence from her ex-husband, the father of her 12 children, for 20 years. After she left home with the children, the court issued temporary protection orders three times, barring the ex-husband from being in the same house with Oksana and their children or being in close proximity to them.

Between January 2019 and January 2020, Oksana obtained three restraining orders and one emergency protection order against her ex-husband and lodged multiple complaints with the police. Her ex-husband ignored all orders, and authorities failed to adequately enforce them. In May 2020, he was given a one-year suspended sentence for failure to comply with restraining order but was not punished for domestic violence.

Sexual violence

Amnesty Internationals research indicates that women in eastern Ukraine continue to experience sexual violence from military personnel in various forms, especially in areas along the contact line.

Amnesty International has documented eight cases of sexual violence against civilian women and girls perpetrated by members of the military, including two instances of rape, one attempted rape, and five cases of sexual harassment, committed by members of the military throughout 2017-2018 in residential areas.

The Ukrainian authorities must carry out swift and comprehensive legal reforms that protect survivors of gender-based and domestic violence. These reforms can only be successful if they stem from genuine consultations with survivors and womens organizations, said Oksana Pokalchuk.

The Ukrainian authorities must carry out swift and comprehensive legal reforms that protect survivors of gender-based and domestic violence

The Ukrainian government has demonstrated in recent years a willingness to address the issue of violence against women. Nows the time to step up their efforts. Ukraine should ratify the Istanbul Convention as this will provide the authorities with a clear roadmap for reform, including further improvement of the legislation, educational programmes for officials and the general public, a government reporting mechanism, and other important changes.

Visit link:
Ukraine: Epidemic of violence against women in conflict-torn east - Amnesty International