Saturday, March 19, 2011
FRS Sides With the Feminists: Jesse Cheng, Who Believes Men are Privileged, Must Be Ousted from UC Board of Regents Following Sexual Assault Ruling
Jesse Cheng, a UC Irvine senior and the student representative on the University of California Board of Regents, was arrested last November after his ex-girlfriend filed a sexual assault complaint with police against him. The Orange County District Attorney's Office declined to file sexual battery charges against Cheng, citing a lack of evidence.
But the UC Irvine Office of Student Conduct has ruled that Cheng engaged in "unwanted touching" of his ex-girlfriend, an offense that's classified as sexual battery. Cheng is deciding whether to appeal the ruling.
Feminist groups want Cheng, who gets free tuition for serving on the board, off the board now.
Cheng insists he is innocent and refuses to resign from the board. But Cheng does not see what happened to him as part of a larger injustice. Just read the statements he's made in his defense: "I have been a champion for gender equality issues and gender violence issues my entire college career, and I would never do anything to compromise those values,” he said. “Neither do I want to say that privileges of men don’t exist anymore or that violence against women doesn’t happen, it just didn’t happen in this case.”
And: “I recognize the privileges that I have as a man, and I recognize that gender violence and violence against women is a serious issue,” Cheng said. “But I’m innocent. I’ve been working on those issues my entire college career. I would never engage in behavior that would compromise those values.”
It is a bizarre case, but False Rape Society will not support the accused here.
Cheng said he ended the relationship with his partner last September. Thereafter, they had three more physically intimate encounters. It was after the second encounter that his former partner accused him of sexual assault, he said.
Here's where it really gets strange. Cheng admits that before he was arrested, he wrote three emails to the woman, known only as "Laya," admitting the sexual assault. In the e-mails, Cheng apologized and acknowledged the crime. “I’m sorry for sexually assaulting you,” he wrote in an e-mail dated Oct. 19. “I am a horrible person for what I did for [sic] you, I tried to rape you, and I thank you everyday for not letting me do that to you.”
Although Cheng admits he wrote the e-mails, he claims he did it because Laya had asked him to. "She was calling me 50 times a day for two hours on the phone a day,” Cheng said. “To be honest, my life was cracking because of these phone calls. They were extremely disruptive and I was extremely stressed out. So I lied in the e-mails to do whatever I could to move forward with my life.” Cheng said she had explicitly stated what kind of language she wanted in the e-mails. He added, however, that the e-mails were not truthful.
FRS has no idea if Mr. Cheng engaged in "unwanted touching." He was not charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. And let us state the obvious, politically incorrect though it may be: the fact that Cheng and his ex-girlfriend engaged in a consensual tryst subsequent to the one where the alleged assault occurred, and that she only later reported the alleged assault, casts doubt on it. At the very least, even if "unwanted touching" occurred, the facts suggest that Cheng's ex-girlfriend didn't think it was an especially serious matter.
But the Office of Student Conduct has ruled that Cheng engaged in "unwanted touching." Even if he didn't, one must seriously wonder if Cheng is either too stupid, or too unstable, to serve as the student regent in light of the admissions he wrote in emails.
Some who are concerned about injustices to falsely accused men will construe Cheng's current predicament as a form of karma. After all, when you join with the gender-divisive purveyors of lock-the-doors-hide-the-daughters Chicken Little rape hysteria, you risk having the monster you helped create turn on you. It is ironic that Cheng himself helped manufacture the very culture that led feminists to stage yet another gender passion play this week, this time, when they protested against him. It is doubly ironic that no matter what happens to Jesse Cheng, he will not acknowledge that the system is broken, and that it allows innocent men to be found responsible of terrible wrongdoing in college kangaroo proceedings that make us long for the good old days of Star Chamber. Jesse Cheng will not help us to change the system; he is only out to save Jesse Cheng.
Jesse Cheng is the author of his own discontent. False Rape Society calls on the Board of Regents to oust him from the board immediately.
Sources:
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/03/uc_board_of_regents_jesse_cheng.php
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2011/03/jesse_cheng_student_conduct_ru.php
http://www.newuniversity.org/2011/02/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-10/
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17635112?nclick_check=1
http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2011/02/uc_student_regent_jesse_cheng_not_charged_with_misdemeanor_sexual_battery
http://digital.davisenterprise.com/news/protesters-want-uc-student-regent-ousted/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
32 comments:
"It is ironic that Cheng himself helped manufacture the very culture that led feminists to stage yet another gender passion play this week, this time, when they protested against him."
This is what I was going to say! Besides the karma aspect here, his WRITTEN admission of guilt pretty much means he needs to be ousted. This site is called "False Rape Society," not "The Society That Supports You Even When You Admit to Guilt," so I would expect you not to support him.
With cases like these, you wonder if the people who are obsessed with punishing others because of sexual assault and such are focused on it because it's what THEY do. Kind of like the anti-sex politicians who turn out to be secret pervs or the anti-gay clergy who you find out slept with men.
If I heard Cheng complain about the system failing him -- about how he wasn't permitted to do something in the hearing -- then I would side for caution in his ouster. What I hear him saying is, I'm not like the "other" men who rape and flaunt their supposed privilege. I'm a feminist, and I didn't do it.
The facts are bizarre. But, honestly, what sort of idiot writes emails like that? Without those, this is a laugher.
P.S. I should add: "What sort of idiot writes emails like that? Someone who's guilty, and who doesn't have the sense to get legal representation."
The Frankenstein Monster that is feminism is beginning to turn on its creators.
It's possible that she is accusing him of things far worse than anything he actually did. Remember: "sexual assault" is a very, very broad category; and by her own admission, the two were still engaged in sexual activity at the time. I hate to judge these things based on something so flimsy as one quote taken out of context.
But yeah, it is sort of nice to see a gushing mangina get a taste of his own menstruation.
I have to disagree with saying he is guilty because of the emails. In my experience, women I know have been much more persistent than men in pushing matters in an argument. How many husbands, boyfriends, brothers, etc. whatever haven't just dropped an argument and falsely admitted being on bad grounds in order to avoid the never-ending shitstorm? I've let girlfriends have the last word on an argument and have had to hear about it till kingdom come.
My comment wreaks of what women would say is misogyny, so let me clarify that my observations are based on my limited empirical evidence from my personal experiences. I'd venture to guess though that a lot of women and men would admit that women will be on average more likely to harp on an argument past its expiration date and more men are likely to just resign in false defeat.
A male feminist is perhaps the most likely to admit to something he didn't do. After surrounding himself with false propaganda stats about how all men have inner rapists and that women are getting raped every second of the day, it'd be hard to be both a man and feminist without suspecting oneself of being a rapist (or at least being sympathetic to the idea).
I think that we should show the guy some pity. As the evil penis post is testament to, many men have felt the societal pressure to be a white knight.
If anybody is looking for a perfect example of what a mangina is, then look no further than Jesse Cheng.
Everyone makes mistakes, but only a fool doesn't learn from them.
"I recognise the privilege I have" ,
He still thinks he has 'male privilege' after this experience? I wonder what it would actually take for this man to realise how much of a tool he is being, or if he was actually forced to make this statement?
He should have gone to the cops 1st to report the relentless badgering to confess that was clearly orchestrated by "laya's" campus army of man hating lesbians. All these broads who want this mangina prosecuted for "unwanted touching" will be wondering where all the "good men" are in a few years.
I tend to agree that Cheng's confession may not be genuine. It is possible that he is such a brainwashed, self-hating male that he may actually believe that he did something worse than he really did. It is not unknown for people under the grip of an authoritarian or oppressive regime to confess to crimes they never committed.
At the same time, I also think that if a mangina is a victim of a false allegation, there is an element of karma to it. They have only themselves to blame if they have nowhere to go for help.
I thank you sirs for making my day.
This more than makes up for a year and half reading about false rapes to finally come across a real rapist.
(snickers)
He made his own rope and hung himself with it,we are only spectators here.
I wish the same for every regent,every cop, every Judge!
Burn you SOB,burn.
All posts • Back to 2011 list • Login
Mar
12Victims, Accusers and the Presumption of Innocence
Call someone a victim, and they are at once framed in a sympathetic light. Bad things happen to victims, we are drawn to them, wanting to help them in any way we can. It is horrible to be a victim.
We don't feel the same way about accusers. These folks are suspect. They point a finger, whether with justification or not lies in the proof. An accuser might be entitled to our sympathy, but they might just as easily merit our scorn if it turns out that their accusations are false.
To a victim goes immediate sympathy and support; to the accuser, a cautious ear. A victim has suffered gratuitously, an accuser may have so suffered, but, without proof, there is no way of saying whether the accuser is the cause of gratuitous harm to another.
There should therefore be no victims in the criminal justice system until after a verdict or plea of guilty. At least there would not be if we were truly serious about the presumption of innocence. Instead, our courts are awash in a cult of victimhood. I say banish the term victim from our lexicon. Substitute it with accuser, a term that is as existentially suspect as the term defendant, the person who is, after all, merely accused: put the accused and the accuser on a level playing field.
Juries are charged daily in this country that an accused person is presumed innocent: unless and until the state proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the law requires jurors to regard a person as not guilty. Yet our language gives this presumption away every time we refer to the accuser as a victim: the victim has suffered gratuitous harm, after all. Who other than the defendant could have caused it?
We throw the presumption of innocence to the wolves when it comes to our treatment of accusers. We have laws giving rights to "victims" at all stages of the criminal proceeding. A person raising an accusation gets input into all phases of a prosecution before there is even a finding of guilt, yet they are not even a party to the litigation. We treat their accusations as truth long before a fact finder tells us the accuser is not really a victimizer.
We have victim's advocates attending pre-trials. Indeed, we use the term victim to describe accusers, doing so without even stopping to consider that calling someone a victim before there is a finding of guilt makes a mockery of the criminal justice system. Calling an accuser a victim before the consummation of a prosecution is much like calling a man with mere lust in his heart a father.
If we were serious about the presumption of innocence we would banish the word victim from our vocabulary until such time as a jury returns a guilty verdict or a defendant enters a plea. Let the complaining witness, or, more aptly put, the accuser, stand in the same suspect netherworld defendants inhabit. Why give a privileged position to the accuser by calling them a victim? This simple act of framing the complaining witness as a victim carries enormous rhetorical and emotional consequences, consequences that rebound to the detriment of the accused.
There are cases in which defendants are wrongfully accused, in which they are themselves the victim. Sometimes defendants are the victims of simple mistake; sometimes defendants are the victims of malicious accusers. Let's dispense with the false sanctimony attending anyone the state seeks to represent as a victim.
A simple start: Let's change the title of those representing complaining witnesses from Victim's Advocates to Accuser's Advocates. Sure, they will object and feel indignant. But feelings are indignation are the lot of the accused, the man or woman cloaked, we say, in the presumption of innocence. Or don't we really care about the presumption of innocence?
I know innocent men take guilty pleas all the time. I would hope FRS supports them, anyway.
It's one thing to be forced to choose between falsely admitting guilt or prison rape.
This, however, is not such a shoice.
No one held prison rape over his head.
He had options, he still had rights.
He chose to roll over and declare himself a rapist.
Enjoy your "priveledge", brother.
You've now earned it.
He's *so* privileged.
This brings me back to the case of Rod Blagojevic, so I wonder if Cheng's views on "male privilege" were just a cover to distract from his actual behavior.
Blagojevic started pandering to Obama, on a racial level, anyway. He started comparing himself to MLK and Mandela, about the hardships he faced, then recommended Oprah (even she went... wtf?) for his seat.
See, there is nothing wrong with championing a fight against (violence against women). In fact, it's commendable.
But you don't throw crap out like "male privilege" unless it's for a specific point.
He wanted to pander to feminists to save his ass. Whether he is guilty or not, he pandered, and like Blagojevic, he failed.
So now he lost support on both sides.
As people have said, he should enjoy his 'privilege'.
Blog Administrators,
Please delete the Mar 20, 2011 9:40:00 AM post.
This poster is a non-supporter.
"Some who are concerned about injustices to falsely accused men will construe Cheng's current predicament as a form of karma."
I agree: Cheng's karma ran over his dogma! But the real story here is NOT that FRS has sided with the Feminists, but that the Feminists have made a fair and just ruling in this case.
As H. Ross Perot used to say:
"Sometimes even a blind hog finds an acorn."
Cheng needs to go, end of story.
"But, honestly, what sort of idiot writes emails like that?"
Someone who is a feminist might be pressured into saying something like,
"I tried to rape you, and I thank you everyday for not letting me do that to you.”
If she let him, it wouldn't be rape.
I knew a liberal feminist who was accused of "sexual assault", and even though that accusation was wildly exaggerated bullshit, his reaction was very much the same. And just like Cheng, it didn't change his politics one bit.
Regardless, I'm against false accusations, no matter the alleged victim's politics, or lack of intelligence.
"Blog Administrators,
Please delete the Mar 20, 2011 9:40:00 AM post.
This poster is a non-supporter."
I don't know about that - the post is ambiguous, it could be taken in a number of ways.
Whoever wrote it does seem a little unhinged.
I know innocent men take guilty pleas all the time. I would hope FRS supports them, anyway.
***
Not just guilty pleas: plenty of innocent men have also made false confessions (ordinarily under pressure from police).
The Innocence Project provides many, many examples of this.
In college, a feminist once told me that if person A convinces person B to have sex then that is rape if person B was not in the mood or reluctant to have sex. I should have concretely asked what happens if person A is female and person B is male.
Free.heretic, do you know of any guy you went to college with who didn't salivate over the thought of a female begging/coercing him for sex? Of course it never happens, or it's so rare that it's not even worth mentioning.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8392887/Another-horrible-case-for-you-Mr-Loughton.html
"As is shown by many of the dozens of such cases I have followed in detail, once social workers have targeted a particular family they may well stop at nothing to make their case stick, ready to cover up some initial error simply by bringing up new accusations against the parents, however improbable."
Fu*king worm....."spare me, and I'll continue helping you screw over other men".
I also agree that the "confession" is negative, but no :PROOF of guilt.
As far as I know, in NORMAL criminal legal practice, if someone writes an email "I am sorry I robbed the bank", this alone does not constitute sufficient proof to convict. He did not get Miranda warnings, had no lawyer, and of course can say he engaged in fantasy play, was drunk, was writing a novel, etc. I believe in non-rape issues, where Magna Carta and due process still rule, there are certain legal requirements for confessions to be valid.
Now, being stupid, or rather imprudent might be grounds to be ousted from a board of regents. It still is not ground for a 8 year rape conviction, if no other evidence can be found.
I also strongly protest the feminist
Manipulative Language, to confound unwanted touching with true real rape in the old sense of the word.
Definition of "Rape": When a "Rape" is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word "Rape" & the Perversion of Language
This guy is so feminist-brain-washed, he might accuse himself of rape if he shook hands and took a second too long to get go of the hand. Or if he touched her shoulders with his index finger.
I appreciate your comment, if you still allow for the guy to have a defense in the criminal trial and not be convicted in advance because of such a stupid "confession".
"Of course it never happens, or it's so rare that it's not even worth mentioning."
Of course, it happens. I don't know where people get this absurd notion that every male is willing to have sex with any female. A common example would be a man who wants to be faithful to a committed relationship.
Human-Stupidity, you are 100% correct.
When I was in college, the head of the Criminal Justice student body got caught with child pornography.
I think I am starting to understand things a little better when I read these things.
I would wager a guess that women (and some men) purposely put people like this in positions of power.
Nothing like putting a bad man in the spotlight, so you can misnomer all men as being like that.
Thank you for leaving my 9:40 am comment up.
I was surprised to find I was the author of the "unhinged" comment.
I admit I am unhinged after being falsely accused,deprived of due process and threatened by a legal system gone mad.
In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
I have zero sympathy for those that collude with
the legal raping of innocent men.
My internal reality of a fair shake under the justice system was destroyed
by the misandrist insane star chamber.
So yes, I am unhinged, very unhinged.
Ty for letting me speak.
I'm with you,Pierce. Fuck this asshole let the feminasties have their way with him.
I think that we should show the guy some pity. As the evil penis post is testament to, many men have felt the societal pressure to be a white knight.
Fuck him he is a mangina feminist. Throw him to the wolves.
Please delete the Mar 20, 2011 9:40:00 AM post.
This poster is a non-supporter.
I've read that poster's comments and I agree with them.
Who are you?
@Human-Stupidity,
The Miranda warning is simply to inform one of one's rights, and Miranda must be administered under certain circumstances.
Suppose you are talking to a cop and are not presently under arrest. The cop is not required to administer the Miranda warning at this juncture, yet any statement given voluntarily to the cop at this time may still be used against you. Incriminating statements given in this setting absolutely can be used to establish probable cause for arrest, and as evidence later on!
You always have the right to remain silent, irrespective of whether Miranda was administered.
I am not a lawyer, don't take my word for it, seek council if needed.
Post a Comment