Years ago we moved into a new neighborhood in Chicago, and as it was the first floor apartment of a two flat as Halloween approached we stocked up on candy in anticipation of trick-or-treaters. We thought we had a pretty good handle on the ratio of kids in the area, but unfortunately we did not anticipate all the carpetbaggers that would show up. I didn’t even bother to leave the doorway the stream of children was so steady.

As you can guess, our candy supply quickly ran out. I didn’t feel like playing the whole “turn the lights off and pretend we’re not home” game, so I cut to the chase and put a “NO CANDY, SORRY” sign on the door. (The fact we were renters quelled any pissed off kid retaliation paranoia.) Well, if the same thing happens this year I’ll have to rethink my strategy or the neighbors might assume I like to diddle little boys.

continue reading…

Bookmark to:
    

After stumbling upon Jessica’s recent post about Toys ‘R Us allegedly harrassing a breastfeeding mother, TRU’s PR manager forwarded us two letters that went out today to the New York Civil Liberties Union in a clear effort to try and stave off the NYCLU’s veiled threat of a lawsuit. One is from Gerald L. Storch, Chairman and CEO of TRU, the other, from Mindy Clements, the general manager of the Times Square TRU store where this all took place, who says she is “also a new mother” and that she feels she is “especially sensitive to issues involving a mother’s right to breastfeed where she chooses”.

Of course, these are most assuredly carefully crafted bits of PR, but given that this whole incident seems to be hearsay and in the interest of objectivity, I’m reprinting both letters here. Read them in their entirety after the jump:

continue reading…

Bookmark to:
    

According to the New York Sun, a woman who was breastfeeding in a NYC Toys ‘R Us was asked by several sales associates to move to their private nursing room in the store’s basement. The controversy stems from how and why she was asked. Toys ‘R Us is claiming that the associates merely asked her if she would be more comfortable in the private area. The mother claims that they told her breastfeeding in the middle of so many families and children was not appropriate. By the time this alleged snafu escalated to what might have elicited further action, the mother was done breastfeeding and went about her business.

The New York Civil Liberties Union says that if TRU doesn’t educate their employees and offer a public apology, they will sue them for violating this woman’s civil rights. The kicker is that in their own press release listed on the ACLU website, they threaten to sue for “compensation”.

FOR WHAT?! At most this women was offended. She was not evicted from the store, she was not denied being able to shop there. Is this what we’ve come to? Should we compensate people just for being offended?

If what TRU is claiming to be true, that she was simply asked if she would feel more comfortable in a more isolated location (which I know some breastfeeding women would be), is that an actionable offense? Perhaps many associates asked, just like how you get asked by 5 salespeople if they can help you, but so what? One associate may not know that somebody has already approached them. It happens all the time.

What exactly are her damages?

I support civil rights, in fact I think we should have more rights and less government intrusion into our lives, yet the NYCLU is contridicting their original intentions by taking away one’s right to be ignorant and say something offensive and naive. Holding corporations hostage for the political intelligence and savvyness of their employees is outrageous. Ideally, TRU probably should include training on the right to breastfeed in public, but are they to be held accountable for a particular person’s sensitivity too?

I say, if you don’t like a rude associate, don’t continue to shop at such a place. Allow consumers to “punish” TRU if they think that’s appropriate, but must we use breastfeeding as a tool to push social and political censorship of unpopular opinion or saying something that is seemingly innocuous, but offensive to those with a particular agenda?

From www.nysun.com

Bookmark to:
    

It’s a Conservatives and child advocates wet dream (what happened today in Chicago). A federal appeals court in Chicago upheld an Indiana law that barred convicted sexual predators from roaming children’s parks in effort to get their rocks off. Apparently, getting your rocks off at the expense of children’s safety is not constitutionally protected.

Sorry ACLU and child molesters, the taxpayers do not have to make it easier for you to violate children.

There is hope for us yet.

From www.indystar.com:

Park ban on molesters upheld
Federal court ruling gives advocates hope that city’s ordinance can survive challenge

By Richard D. Walton
richard.walton@indystar.com
A federal appeals panel ruled this week that a convicted child molester can be banned from public parks, raising hopes among child advocates that a new Indianapolis ordinance restricting the access of sex abusers can withstand a court challenge.

In its ruling, the three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld a decision by a federal court in Hammond that barring Robert E.
Brown from parks did not violate his constitutional rights.
Officials in Michigan City had observed Brown viewing people through binoculars and “driving by very slowly” at a children’s day camp. Although no evidence was presented that he was stalking children, the Michigan City Parks and Recreation Board judged that he posed a threat.
The ACLU of Indiana brought a legal challenge against a resolution banning Brown, arguing his right to due process had been violated. But the 7th Circuit held that, as a practical matter of ensuring public safety, Brown was not “just another patron” of the parks.
“He is a convicted child molester whose frequency of attendance and atypical behavior while in the park justified the concern of those public officials charged with ensuring the safety of members of the public who visit the recreational site,” the judges said.

COURT’S FINDINGS

In upholding a resolution banning a convicted child molester from Michigan City parks, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found:

• There is no fundamental right to access to public parks.

• State law grants municipal parks discretion in setting conditions on public entry.

• Children are susceptible to abuse in parks, and cities have a duty to protect them. Read the rest…

Bookmark to: