Subscribe to our RSS feed
Follow us on Twitter
Every politician, presumably, is opposed to rape. So it would seem likely that Sen. Al Franken’s first legislative amendment — which would prohibit government contractors from restricting workers from suing if they are sexually assaulted while on the job — would pass unanimously. The provision was inspired by the story of a 19-year-old KBR employee who was gang-raped by co-workers while detailed to Iraq. Upon returning to the U.S., she learned that she was unable to sue the company because of a clause in her contract.
“Seems like a bit of a slam dunk,” noted Jon Stewart, in a segment on The Daily Show last night. “How is anyone against this?”
But the provision merely passed the Senate by a 68-30 margin, along party lines. Stewart goes on to gleefully savage Sen. Jeff Sessions and other Republicans for opposing the measure. Here’s the clip:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Rape-Nuts | ||||
|
||||
Leave a comment
Become a fan on Facebook
10 Comments »
Comment posted October 15, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Republi-thugs spent months ripping apart a satire piece written by Mr. Franken years ago where he made a joke in poor taste.
This wonderful statesman, who mirrors Mr. Wellstone on this topic, puts forth a bill that would help women in a dire position and the Right Wing Nut Jobs try to beat it back.
Mr. Stewart has a duty as a responsible journalist to ridicule those idiots. Thank you Mr. Stewart.
Comment posted October 15, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
It’s a remarkable story, thank you for bringing this to light. It’s sick how far and low politicians will go to defend their money stream.
Comment posted October 15, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
Is this about suing the rapists or suing the company who hired everyone? Is the company at fault for these poor excuses for humans raping her? Is it that they made those conditions possible? I need to know this to really understand.
Comment posted October 15, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
She wanted to prosecute the rapists, but was unable to, per the contract she signed upon coming to work for KBR. Ridiculous how the company protects rapists in its ranks. Funnier how the right wingers fail to see how the government has a responsibility to at least not financially endorse such a company.
Comment posted October 15, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
Read this, then:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3977702&page=1
http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/19/kbr-gang-rape-survivor-says-11-more-women-like-her/
Comment posted October 15, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
Looks like the article clearly states she was trying to sue the COMPANY – she wasn’t going after the rapists. It doesn’t say the company was protecting the slimy scum they hired (on good faith assumption that they were law abiding as they pretended to be), it says the company made sure they couldn’t be sued if any of the adult men they hired ended up to be total scum, which these guys were.
There’s really no story here – except that Sen. Franken decided to use this tragedy to propose more legislation to harm business. It would be terrible if companies could be sued when one or more of their employees harmed or assaulted another. Unless, of course, a company was directly negligent in some very obvious way.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Sen. Franken also writes legislation that prevents companies from firing employees who turn up with a record of sexual assault.
Comment posted October 16, 2009 @ 9:18 am
To those insisting that the company is not liable, please read the following article and then decide whether or not the company can be held liable. (If you still feel the company isnt responsible, God help you!)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/15/kbr-halliburton-rape-jamie-leigh-jones
Comment posted October 16, 2009 @ 11:31 am
@joss – “Looks like the article clearly states she was trying to sue the COMPANY – she wasn’t going after the rapists”
so you’re basing this off an article that is roughly 2 small paragraphs long? you expected minute detail? do some extra research….the woman, after being gang raped, was then locked in a storage locker and denied medical help (she had reconstructive surgery…when she got back to the states). when she got back she was told she was fired, couldn’t go after the employees, and she could only talk to an arbitrator. THAT’s why this is being brought up
Comment posted October 16, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
joss, did you look into the details, AT ALL? The Company locked her up, destroyed the rape kit, and had a clause in her contract requiring Binding Arbitration for cases of sexual assault, basically requiring her to hand over her rights in exchange for employment. The Company was very clearly an accomplice to the crime.
Comment posted October 16, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
“to harm business” ……….. ? seriously? you think this is about an attempt to harm business?
joss……..
you’re in need of immediate psycological evaluation.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment