Thousands attend as Boston holds 'Sl*twalk'

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
BOSTON — Chanting "We love Sl*ts!" and holding signs like "Jesus loves Sl*ts," approximately 2,000 protesters marched Saturday around the Boston's Common as the city officially become the latest to join an international series of protests known as "Sl*tWalks."

The protest movement, sparked by a Toronto police officer's remark that women could avoid being raped by not dressing like "Sl*ts," came to Boston after advocates saw similar events -- largely organized through Facebook and Twitter -- pop up in Canada, England and other parts of the U.S.

"We wanted to do something to show our support," said Siobhan Connors, 20, of Lynn, Mass., a Boston organizer. "We originally planned for small event and expected about 30 people."

But by the time the march began Saturday, about 2,000 people -- some dressed in lingerie with the words "Sl*t" written across their stomachs -- were in attendance.

In January, a Toronto police officer told a group of university students that women should avoid dressing like "Sl*ts" to avoid being raped. He later apologized. The officer who made the comments, Constable Michael Sanguinetti, was disciplined but remained on duty, said Toronto police spokesman Mark Pugash.

However, advocates in Toronto held a "Sl*tWalk" to protest the officer's remarks and to highlight what they saw as problems in blaming sexual assault victims. Since then, Sl*tWalks, organized mainly through social media, have been held in Dallas, Asheville, N.C., and Ottawa, Ontario. Organizers say the events also were held to bring attention to "Sl*t-shaming," or shaming women for being sexual, and the treatment of sexual assault victims.

"I had watched the Toronto walk happen from afar," said Jaclyn Friedman, author of "Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape" and resident of Medford, Mass. "When I heard it was coming to Boston I just emailed the organizers and said, 'How can I help?"'

Organizers invited Friedman to speak.

Vanessa White, 33, of Somerville, Mass., also heard about the event through Facebook and showed up with the Boston event dressed in a pink jacket and fishnet stockings.

"For me ... it's an attempt to reclaim the word 'Sl*t' itself," said White. "Because once you reclaim it, you take the power away from it."

Before the march, a small group of counter protesters, wearing colorful cowboy hats with feathers and holding a boom box that played hip-hop and 1970s funk, walked around the gathering. Dubbed the "PimpWalk," organizer Samuel Bilowski, 23, of Salem, N.H., said his group wanted to "get some numbers" and talk to attractive women.

"This is a pathetic attempt at a joke," admitted Bilowski. "We're just having fun."

Still, White and a group of other advocates surrounded Bilowski and his group and yelled the word "Sl*t" repeatedly. Others verbally attacked Bilowski for glorifying violence against women.

Bilowski's group eventually joined the Sl*tWalk march around the Common.

Following Boston, Sl*tWalk marches are planned in cities including Seattle; New York; Chicago; Philadelphia; Reno, Nev.; and Austin, Texas.

---------------------

To get the above link to work, you have to type in the full work, without censors, "Sl*t"

Man, they used the word "Sl*t" a lot in this report..... had to go in an edit the ****'s to make sure people knew what was being talked about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Yup it finally came to America, Bring out the Burqas, avoid being one of those.
Good God people the police have enough to do without some fool opening
his mouth and spewing his own version of life. It is the laws responsibility to
protect people, citizens of the community from violence. It is not up to the
police to tell people how to dress in a free and open society.
I sometimes wonder if we should bring back hanging for some serious crimes
but not all. Rapists, child molesters, participants in honour killings, contract
and first degree murderers are top of the list. Add to that those convicted of
killing police, judges, and those who willingly engage in terrorism.
Is there anyone else we could add to the list? I used to oppose the death
penalty as it is not a deterrent in the slightest, but it gets the message out there
that we are no longer going to have these low life's returned to our streets to
commit more crimes.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Yup it finally came to America, Bring out the Burqas, avoid being one of those.
Good God people the police have enough to do without some fool opening
his mouth and spewing his own version of life. It is the laws responsibility to
protect people, citizens of the community from violence. It is not up to the
police to tell people how to dress in a free and open society.
I sometimes wonder if we should bring back hanging for some serious crimes
but not all. Rapists, child molesters, participants in honour killings, contract
and first degree murderers are top of the list. Add to that those convicted of
killing police, judges, and those who willingly engage in terrorism.
Is there anyone else we could add to the list? I used to oppose the death
penalty as it is not a deterrent in the slightest, but it gets the message out there
that we are no longer going to have these low life's returned to our streets to
commit more crimes.

That's all I ever saw the death penalty as..... it isn't some people's form of justice, but when it comes a criminal who already served their sentence and committed yet another serious crime, then the death penalty would apply, for the sole purpose of making sure we remove that well-known threat from our society. Not all, but in some cases, it can be a deterrent...... for others, it'll just be a means to remove a known and proven threat.

It may not prevent similar crimes from happening in the future, but it will prevent that same criminal from committing more violent crimes later on.

Caught once.... you goto prison for a long time...... caught a second time doing the same thing or something very similar as to what you were caught before..... you forfit your life.

Pretty simple & effective.

........ Now back to the Sl*ts!


toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110508/boston-sl utwalk-110508/20110508?hub=TorontoNewHome (remove space in Sl-utwalk)
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
What's with all the ugly broads? Sheesh!

As for the death penalty, when humans quit making mistakes, I'll get behind killing someone who isn't an immediate threat.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
I am not in favour of the death penalty for things other than capital offences though
with the exception of rape. I don't agree with the three strikes thing either as it is
usually low grade criminals that get caught up in that and many of these people
suffer from mental disorders that are off medication related situations.

I don't consider violent rape or child molestation to be mistakes. Its time to do what
ever it takes to put an end to repeats. You cannot predict who will offend but you can
do something about those who repeat. There are other types of murder as well, in
many cases, people end up dead not because of an evil plan but because often as
not emotions get out of control, I don't see that as a death penalty offence either.

If such a method is to be put into place, we must still keep justice in mind, and make
sure the death penalty is not just pure revenge, and there is a difference. I think if it
were to be implemented we would have to have some serious ground rules.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
I agree, which is why I think if a death penalty was to be brought back in, it should only be valid for repeat offenders of serious crimes. As many would argue that someone could be executed who was innocent of a crime, that is why a first offence, regardless of how serious it was, should not be allowed to seek the death penalty.

Only in cases where it has been shown that person ended up in a very similar situation as before, and found guilty a second time, should the death penalty be applied..... it'd be pretty damn bad luck if the guy was completely innocent both times, yet found guilty both times & the evidence shows their guilty both times...... thus the death penalty in this type of situation would be as effective a mouth wash killing 99.9% of the bacteria..... where the innocent killed (if it were ever to happen) would be in that 0.1%...... or you could relate it to a condom if you like.