Ernie Chamber’s lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against God has been thrown out. It’s once again getting a few giggles on atheist blogs so I thought I’d take a moment to remind people why Chambers filed the suit to begin with.
As I said before, Chambers filed the lawsuit in protest over the filing of “frivolous” lawsuits. His example of a frivolous lawsuit and the proverbial straw that broke his back?
The one filed by Tory Bowen against Jeffre Cheuvront, a judge in Nebraska, accusing him of violating her first amendment rights. The reason she filed it is because Cheuvront barred the use of any words and phrases that would have given the jury the impression that she did not consent to sexual intercourse with Pamir Safi.
That’s why Chamber’s filed his lawsuit. Because a woman barred from describing herself as raped filed a lawsuit against the judge who barred her from doing so. That’s “frivolous” in Chamber’s book and should be mocked via the filing of a real frivolous lawsuit.
Chambers is not amusing. He’s an asshole, plain and simple.
As you may be aware, Ernie Chambers is seeking a permanent injunction against everyone’s favourite imaginary friend. Amusing, eh? Wrong. Chambers has not ‘had it up to here’ with all the godbots running around killing and terrorizing anyone who doesn’t adhere to their imaginary friend’s One True Mindfuck. He’s ‘had it up to here’ with frivolous lawsuits.
The lawsuit that broke Ernie’s back is the one filed by Tory Bowen against Judge Jeffre Cheuvront. You see, Ms. Bowen was raped, as in sexually assaulted. Medical personnel collected evidence from Ms. Bowen, the victim, in a sexual assault kit. The cops did their duty and the prosecutors brought charges against Ms. Bowen’s assailant.
But, if you set in on the two trials Ms. Bowen was put through – you wouldn’t know that because every italicized word in my previous sentences were banned by the judge as being prejudicial. In short, the judge forced Ms. Bowen and the prosecution to use terms and descriptions that did not fit the circumstances while refusing to ban words that may have given the jury the idea that Ms. Bowen was just crying “wolf”.
Ms. Bowen has sued the little twit over it.
Mr. Chambers thinks this is “frivolous”? WTF? Not only has the use of words been a powerful tool of oppression, so too has the control of words been a tool of oppression. I’d go as far to say that the control of words is the most powerful tool of oppression.
The fact of the matter is when you control what your victims say, you control the public perception of your behaviour. If your victim can’t use the terms that aptly describe what happened to them per their own view, then your victim isn’t a victim, just another whiner who doesn’t like to (fairly) lose.
How an alleged civil rights leader who claims to be represent the downtrodden could have possibly missed this lesson is beyond me.