#rape convict

[rightnewshindi]

आसाराम के बेटे और रेप के दोषी नारायणसाईं को जेल में नहीं मिलेगा लैपटॉप, जानें क्या बोला गुजरात हाई कोर्ट

Narayan Sai News: गुजरात हाई कोर्ट ने हाल ही में कहा कि राज्य सरकार को ज्ञान और अनुसंधान उद्देश्यों को पूरा करने के लिए राज्य की जेलों में बंद कैदियों को इंटरनेट की सीमित पहुंच प्रदान करने पर विचार करना चाहिए। जस्टिस हसमुख डी सुथार ने कहा कि अब समय आ गया है कि जेल अधिकारी प्रौद्योगिकी को अपनाएं और जेल में डिजिटल वातावरण बनाएं। कोर्ट आसाराम बापू के बेटे नारायणसाईं आशाराम हरपलानी की उस याचिका पर…

[ravenkings]

we are DEEP in #metoo backlash unfortunately

[demi-full]

Thought this was important to put on here

[45percenterthen]

can someone pls inform the tiktokers that mike tyson is a convicted rapist

[radicalkhaleesi]

kill all men. i hope every juror on this case kills themselves too.

[kellykadesperate]

absolutely devastated and embarrassed for those who voted for harris and for like you know. reason? logic? not a racist fascist! but the rest of you can choke !

[blackmagictrait]

this isn't gonna win me any friends but I won't pay a dime to see movies made by/starring people who signed the petition to free convicted child rapist roman polanski, and that includes guillermo del toro and wes anderson. you can love their movies all you want but paying to see them puts money in the pocket of people who publicly support rapists going free. 🤷🏾‍♀️

[majorbaby]

no more long rambly rants. i am just going to start killing misogynists.

[rosencatholic]

so you're celebrating because a convicted felon and rapist was elected? how very christian of you.

womp womp

It was the will of God for him to win and he did. Glory to God in the highest!

[correllian]

[mitragynines]

I'm against the death penalty except for rapists of little kids. They should be publicly hung during medieval-style community celebrations

[victoriansecret]

Indentured Servitude, Convict Servitude, and Slavery

Before I start, I want to be extremely clear that this is focused on 18th century Britain and British America. Other cultures, and other time periods, have different forms of all of these, but this is my primary period and place of study. I am going to break each section into its own post because I've had issues with long posts, I ask that you reblog the last post so the whole thread is accessible. Content warning for slavery, abuse, rape I am writing this because it is a subject I have focused much of my own research on, and in my career I have discovered that many people are confused about what these are all in general, and particularly how they differ from one another. That is the main thing I am attempting to explain, while giving general brief overviews of each. I don't generally do "heavy history" stuff here, and I didn't go out of my way to do specific research for this: it's based on my preexisting knowledge, and it's not heavily footnoted, though I did look up a few specific things to cite. Feel free to ask questions or add insight of your own!

Indentured Service The biggest thing that differentiates indentured servitude from the other forms I will discuss is in the name itself: “indenture” means contract. The person being indentured would sign a contract, which could be purchased by somebody to own their labour for a period of time. This is vital, because at least ostensibly it was entered into willingly. This is not to say that it was not rife with abuse: it was. Even setting aside times people were outright coerced or fooled into indenturing themselves, it was often done by people who were desperate. Still, it provided more agency than the other two forms. But perhaps even more importantly, the indenture gave them legal protection in the eyes of the law. If their master was not abiding by the contract, they could be sued at court, and while I have no doubt that servants had the odds against them, I can document many cases of them successfully winning their suits and being paid out hefty sums in damages. The opposite is true as well, of course - generally, if a servant runs away and is returned, they can be brought to court by their master, and typically the punishment is to have time added to their contract (usually, the time they were away plus additional time). And for what it's worth, I have even seen servants go to court to extend their own contract, or sign a new one, because they were unable to support themselves on their own. This is exceedingly rare, but I have seen it.

In the broadest sense, people who entered an indenture typically did so to pay off some kind of debt. This might be a preexisting debt, or it might be one that they incurred in the process of signing the indenture itself: for many Europeans, the possibilities promised in America were alluring enough (or their present lives difficult enough) that many were willing to indenture themselves explicitly to have their passage to America paid, and then spend years working off that debt in hopes of establishing themselves new lives in America. It's important to note that Britain, and much of Europe, was already rather densely populated at this time. And because it had been so urbanized there was in many places little land to be found, and what there was tended to be owned by the wealthy elite already. In America, the exact opposite was true: there was seemingly endless land, and relatively few people. For some frame of reference, in the 1770s the most populated city in North America is Philadelphia, with somewhere around 30-40 thousand people living there. By contrast, London at the same time had well over a million people. So the hope that many people had was that they could come to America, acquire land of their own, and at the very least subsist off of their own work, and ideally maybe even succeed well enough to improve their lives. And not merely monetarily, but also in status: owning land conferred benefits in society such as being able to vote, hold office, etc.

This was, of course, part of the much broader issue of Europeans encroaching on lands held by Native people and the displacement and genocide perpetrated against them. And especially in colonies where tobacco was the primary cash crop, it had a devastating effect on the land itself: unless done with proper and careful crop rotation, tobacco ruins the soil it's planted in within a few years, and you are unable to plant anything there for upwards of 20 years. Generally, the Europeans in America were practicing what we might call "slash and burn" planting, where they cared only about quick profits and would raze the ground, constantly wanting to replace the lands they had spoiled and stealing increasingly more and more land from Native nations and tribes in their avarice. And while this was exponentially more of an issue with the wealthiest of planters - people like the Washingtons, who had hundreds of thousands if not millions of acres of land and were always looking for more - the sheer number of small farms still had a cumulative effect.

Anyway, the point being this was an alluring prospect for many poor labourers and tradespeople in Europe who were in hyper-competitive job markets where they could expect extremely exploitative, low wages for exceptionally high quality, production, and specialized labour. Even tradespeople in America made much higher wages on average (often for poorer quality work) than England, for example, although many people who performed trades in their homeland were keen to drop their tools and pick up a hoe in America. This was in fact sometimes such a big problem that there are instances of colonial governments essentially subsidizing tradespeople, paying them to continue doing their trade so that they have people doing that sort of work. Over time this became less common, especially as the number of enslaved labourers outpaced indentured servants: with so much of the field work being done by enslaved people, it became more common for indentured servants to be put to work at their trade, although it was still common for them to cease their trade and acquire land of their own at the conclusion of their contract. As for the contracts themselves, there were standard forms that could be used, but there was flexibility in the some of the language, and especially the length of the contract. One of the more common misconceptions I hear and see about indentures is that they typically lasted seven years, and I will explain in a moment why I think that misunderstanding happens. When I have looked at indentures, most often they're for somewhere between 3-5 years, although they can be longer or shorter as well. It's not particularly uncommon to see even 1-2 years, I've even seen some that are just for months at a time. There are also occasionally some interesting clauses written into contracts. Sometimes it will stipulate what role or duties the servant will perform: whether it's to keep performing their skilled trade, or to act as a domestic servant, for example, because the default is so often, at least in America, that they are going to be working in the fields. A somewhat common turn of phrase you see is "will not be put to work at the plow", i.e. that they will not be doing farm work. Which, having done some 18th century farm work in the Virginia summer, I can wholly understand.

As an aside, if you want to read a diary of an indentured servant, the account of John Harrower is interesting. He was a Scottish man who indentured himself for America in the early 1770s. He’s kind of an exceptional case, because it appears he had been a somewhat successful merchant who had fallen on hard times: he is clearly more educated than most, and he is hired specifically to be a schoolteacher for his wealthy master’s children (and eventually, for other children in the nearby plantations, for which his master charged fees and paid Harrower a portion of them). Still, there’s some fascinating details in there, particularly about the ship journey over, but also just every day life in Virginia. I think the most fascinating passage in the whole thing is also the most harrowing (no pun intended), where he describes how he and the other servants are to be sold:

You can read his journal here: https://archive.org/details/jstor-1834690

[ausetkmt]

For those who are following the Carbonation trial of their leader Eligio Bishop aka "Natureboy"

He has been found guilty on all four charges.

wonder if since He alleges he is god if he will just make all the charges disappear??????

[lecoindecachou]

Honestly the Gisèle Pélicot story is so fucking awful and the more you read about it the worse it gets.

Like, for context, her husband specifically told the men he invited over to rape his drugged wife not to wear a condom. And as it turns out at least one of those men was HIV-positive and knew he was HIV-positive. He raped her SIX times, which means she (and all the assholes who raped her but fuck them all the way to hell, I hope their dicks fall off) was exposed to HIV on six different occasions.

And while she did not catch HIV she was still diagnosed with four different sexually transmitted diseases. Just. What the fuck is wrong with people.

[snekdood]

i dont think I should have to explain how it's fucked up to tell someone with bpd, someone with an already unstable sense of self, that they're not themself and try to insist you're them instead. I feel like that's pretty self explanatory actually

[jew-flexive]

what is happening in gaza is a crime and must be opposed by the global community. the israeli government’s role in subjugating palestinians and opposing their justified national aspirations—aspirations shared by the jewish people—is undeniable. bibi is a war criminal, and likud cannot be allowed to continue to drive israel into dark and deeper dark.

october 7th was a day of inhumane brutality, and to deny or undercut the scale of the horror is antisemitic in the extreme. hamas is a terrorist organization that cannot be trusted to build a lasting peace for the region or for their people. hamas refuses to hold elections, has committed war crimes, and has never dealt with the peace process in good faith.

these are all truths we can and must hold in conversation with one another if we are to build a world that ensures the safety, dignity, and humanity of israelis and palestinians. denying history does nothing to ensure a liberated palestine or a homeland for the jewish people. i believe in self-determination for all peoples in their native lands. i refuse to allow my commitment to the jewish and palestinian causes to live in conflict with one another, and i’m sick of so many americans who have no understanding of the conflict or the history of the region and its people refusing to allow room for nuance, discussion, and grief for the victims—all of them.