Pro-life Bernal billboard corrected by feminist vandals

09.06.12 - 11:30 am | Caitlin Donohue |

(55)

PHOTO BY NEIGHBOR JOHN

Those in favor of a women's right to choose need no longer avert their eyes from that squalling pro-life billboard on the corner of Cortland and Andover -- some midnight marauders "corrected" its anti-choice sentiment. Who says there's no good street art in San Francisco?

Comments

And if a pro-choice billboard had been vandalized would you have

been similarly delighted? Purely in the interests of art, of course.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 11:51 am

We have this weird "reproductive rights" bias

And anyways, nothing that Will.I.Am can do counts as an art form -- which includes shitting on women's sexual freedom (see: Elle Magazine condom-gate)

Posted by caitlin on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 11:56 am

had a GF

who lived up in NW Portland who lived across from the Lovejoy clinic, I had to listen to this pro-life asshole every day, he started in everyday with his ranting and raving very early.

At last I went out and informed him that if he didn't start adhering to common norms I would coerce him too. He calmed down at this point. He was at the time a hero to born againers of the area, my ultimatum seemed to calm the situation.

I suppose that if I had done this to a progressive ranting it would have been an atrocity against womyn.

Alas, being a progressive entitles you to things that only born againers are also entitled too.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 10:00 pm

The solution to bad speech is more speech and action.

My husband and I used to support BACORR when they did clinic defense in the early 1990s.

One favorite tactic was to perform mock fellatio in the center of their prayer circles. They responded to that by speaking wildly in tongues.

Another fave was to comment on the hotness of their fresh faced teenage male rescuers, speculating loudly about their various characteristics and articulating designs on their bodies.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 7:46 am

It was just a troll.

matlock trying to be crafty: ignore.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 9:29 am

heh, very good

I had a friend that managed a clinic, I told her I would be happy to be an escort on the weekends when it was the worst. She just laughed and said she didn't want me and the clinic involved in a lawsuit when I punched on one of the losers with the pictures of fake abortions.

Posted by - on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 4:44 pm

"Mock fellatio"

very stupid to equate a woman's right to abortion with fellatio. yes, in a very broad way, sexual freedom and abortion rights are connected -- in that women have been oppressed on both those fronts since mono-theism, but the connection is very long, and not readily apparent to most people.

Let's stick to the issue: free abortion on demand for all women. nothing to do with fellatio or any other specific sexual act.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 4:55 am

The issue was making it as

The issue was making it as uncomfortable as possible for the Christians with Operation Rescue to put themselves between women seeking abortions and a clinic.

One way to do that was to use their hatred of gays as a way to distract from their hatred of women and to do so towards their teenage males.

One reason why feminism is failing us now is an historical lack of subtlety of analysis peppered with a refusal to have a sense of humor about anything exemplified by this post.

The prevalent concern has become more about demonstrating outrage at the hurting of people's feelings rather than about confronting the problem in the first instance.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 6:16 am

OK, Caitlin, so it's "right" to vandalize a pro-life billboard

but "wrong" to vandalize a pro-choice billboard, even though both are crimes, for no reason other than that you admit you are "biased".

I think pro-lifers use a very similar argument to assassinate doctors who kill abortion doctors.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 11:32 am

Sure

But then, that's murder.

Posted by caitlin on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 11:53 am

A crime is a crime, Caitlin

You're accepting the viewpoint that breaking laws is OK based on your own personal and subjective opinion, rather than the law of the land.

The rest is just a matter of degree.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 12:14 pm

yes,

perhaps you missed the point of the whole civil disobedience thing. The vandals will be prosecuted if caught regardless of caitlin' opinion, so what's your problem exactly? Being a fan of people who break laws in situations you find worthy has absolutely no bearing on the primacy of such laws. Keep talking, though. We love how relativism has seized the troll mind, hilarious.

Posted by admin on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

My problem is the hypocrisy of the staed opinion.

That a behavior is "good" is you agree with the cause but "bad" if it doesn't.

A complete lack of objectivity and balance, both hallmarks of good journalism.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 1:18 pm

you, my friend

are laboring under great illusions of what "hypocrisy" means, and also of what the Guardian represents. Try www.cnn.com ...

Posted by admin on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 1:25 pm

Or if I may be so bold as to simplify it pithily:

F--k the f--k off.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 2:46 pm

Hypocrisy is supporting a kind of behavior simply because

you just happen to agree with the "cause" underlying it, while opposing that behavior when your opponents do the exact same thing.

Rather like how progressive SF women, usually so bitchy and vehement about DV, came over all coy when Ross abused his wife.

Like I said, vandalism is wrong, regardless of the message. The law isn't selective, but Caitlin's opinions are. Heck, she even admitted being "biased".

Posted by Guest on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 3:54 pm

It's basically pro-choice free speech: the irony lies elsewhere.

There is a certain sense to it.

When radical christianist vigilantes bomb clinics and shoot down doctors who perform their choice-affirming duties, it isn't necessary for the radical cohort to denounce such acts. No, instead such terrorist acts are widely lauded or at the very least excused.

Why the double standard? Because those devils *know* that they are bad people doing harm to others out of malice; that is their raison-d'etre. They *are* hypocrites.

On the other hand, Caitlin is simply applauding one side of what is basically a simple free-speech-on-free-speech conflict. (True, there is a component of property damage, but it isn't the sort of thing you need to call an ambulance and a firetruck to deal with, after all.)

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 1:30 pm

So if property damage is OK if you have a "cause" then is it

OK for me to paint "wife abuser" on the walls of Ross's property if I am a domestic violence advocate?

Caitlin appears to agree that is OK and, even, is a form of art as well as free speech.

Or rather, would that be a "double standard"?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 3:57 pm

Typical for you anti-Mirkarimi haters to come up with false

analogies.

1) Ross is not a "wife abuser."

2) A billboard is a venue for commercial speech, the customization of that billboard is akin to shouting just a bit more loudly than people who are themselves shouting their message in a public space except for the property crime component. Defacing someone's home would be a hate crime.

3)... no wonder you don't see the distinction, but spray painting someone's billboard is *not* the same as spraying them with bullets.

4) Caitlin did not write that she "approved" of the defacing -- nor did she invoke "free speech"; those were my words and I used them advisedly for the purpose of making my point.

5) Read the piece again. There aren't that many words there so you should be able to get through it pretty easily.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 5:29 pm

OT--Yes, Ross Mirkarimi is a wife abuser.

About Ross - He admitted to committing an abusive act against his wife, on tape and under oath. You choose to feel that he is not a "wife abuser" but others have legitimate grounds...and legal findings...with which to feel otherwise. It is quite small minded to claim that their views are "false".

Posted by Claris on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 7:08 pm

"legal findings?" Plural?

Seems questionable for you to be casting about ad hominems as you seem to have misunderstood the facts of this case.

He plead guilty to *one* count of misdemeanor false imprisonment, so there appears to not be multiple legal findings as you suggest.

Claris, I will stipulate that your heart is quite good and you are not one of the habitual liars regarding this matter who has a political agenda. You no doubt have strong feelings due to a personal -- and perhaps all-too-personal -- awareness of domestic violence.

I think it is a real shame that the domestic violence prevention and prosecution community has been aligned in such a direct way with Ross Mirkarimi's political enemies over this matter.

Yes, grabbing his wife's arm was wrong and it was a violent act. This act was not in an of itself reason for you to paint him in the same light as bad men who commit far the more serious acts we more properly associate with the term "wife abuser"; acts which cause injuries requiring medical care.

In fact, Ross Mirkarimi's long public service and his specific work with domestic violence and policing in general should be taken into account by the domestic violence community.

If I felt that Ross Mirkarimi had intended to cause a physical injury to his wife, I wouldn't spend so much time defending him, but the evidence for that just isn't there. Many men -- and women -- shout at their spouses which is legally domestic violence. There is a continuum of behavior with Ross' far over on the end of the spectrum scarcely ever arouses the intervention of police and prosecutorial powers.

The reason that happened is purely political.

One final word. The belief that due to Ross Mirkarimi's position as sheriff that he should be treated harshly even though his behavior on its own doesn't merit such treatment -- that he can be made into an example to frighten the kind of thugs who commit horrendous acts of violence -- is fraught with intellectual and moral hazard.

Firstly, it almost certainly will have no such effect, and secondly it puts your own behavior on a very questionable moral plane: other people are not props; they are not puppets to be arranged for the furhterance of one's own personal agenda.

Every case is unique, just as is every individual. Ross Mirkarimi is not a "wife abuser."

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 7:42 pm

Since Ross has admitted abusing his wife, he does not need you

calling him a liar about that.

He wants to move on, not live in denial. Grant him that.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 8:37 pm

Again with the lying troll scat re: "abusing"

No, I imagine Ross doesn't actually need me to defend him, in view of the utter transparency of the lies issued against him.

Ed Lee spewed the same filth and I have yet to see any proof that it did him good in public polling.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 9:29 pm

But of course the opposite is true also Lilli

There is no proof that suspending Ross and going forward on the charges has harmed his popularity either, Lee's at least. There is ample polling that seems to indicate Ross is not doing as well.

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 10:29 pm

Again, Lilli, Ross has admitted the crime and pled to it.

Your constant chortling that he has done nothing wrong contradicts his own statements.

But anyway, that isn't the issue here, but rather Caitlin's implicit support of the idea of anti-DV advocates vandalising Ross's house with anti-DV graffiti to protest the behavior that he has already admitted to.

I suspect Caitlin wouldn't like that so much though, since she only supports property damage and vandalism when it's for a cause that she just happens to admit to being biased about.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 08, 2012 @ 6:43 am

Anti-Mirkarimi hater mendacity and menacing character laid bare.

Why neccessary to respond further? Ignore.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 08, 2012 @ 7:45 am

You always resort to insults when you cannot refute.

But my point wasn't even about Ross and wife abuse. I don't hate Ross; I hate wife abuse.

It was about the reasonableness of using vandalism, property damage and other such tactics to try and silence political views that are contrary to your own.

If it's OK to vandalise pro-life billboards then it's just as OK to daub graffiti on Ross's house if you oppose DV.

Caitlin, as so often with the SFBG, supports a double standard - one rule for the left and a different rule for the right.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 08, 2012 @ 8:34 am

you really need to read the specific statute to which he

pled.....You'll hate it, but there is "no intent to harm"language Ross Mirkarimi is not a spousal abuser.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 08, 2012 @ 11:59 am

"False imprisonment" is a form of abuse and a form of violence.

If I lock the door of a room you are in and do not allow you to leave, despite your stated desire to leave, then I am guilty of false imprisonment. I am using force to constrain you, therefore it is an act of violence and an abuse of your freedom.

Same thing if we are in a vehicle or any other restricted space.

If you are my spouse, then that fits the category of domestic violence and spousal abuse, rather than just general violence and abuse.

And all that without even talking about physical harm e.g. a bruise, which Ross admits causing.

So if you oppose that type of abuse, it would appear that Caitlin supports your right to deface posters, walls and signs to get your message across.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 08, 2012 @ 1:43 pm

Mirkarimi observation

Here is an observation for you...any time that you're defending the actions of an elected official...and you have to ask people to 'read the specific statute to which he pled'...you might be on a futile effort.

Posted by Another guest on Sep. 08, 2012 @ 5:29 pm

Hello, police? I want to report a case of domestic violence.

Oh, no, not me; my client... err... I mean my neighbor.

No, she didn't want to call the police, but I have this video...

... yes, Phil Bronstein said you'd come right over with a subpeona.

That's right! It's someone you cops may be particularly happy to mess with; he's the guy who as supervisor forced you out of your cars and onto the street walking a beat.

Uh huh. Your doughnuts got windburn because of Ross Mirkarimi.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 08, 2012 @ 5:54 pm

And then what happened? Did he plead guilty?

"Yes, Your Honor...I want to plead guilty to a trumped up charge. I didn't do anything but I want to admit to a crime anyway to make this whole thing go away and then I can settle in as Sheriff and become a symbol of the law in this town"

Posted by Another guest on Sep. 08, 2012 @ 6:14 pm

Jesus Christ - shut up

You've been saying the same thing here now for 9 months, those in opposition to you have been saying the same thing here for 9 months. Don't you ever get tired of writing the same thing, over and over and over? This matter is now out of your hands and will not be impacted by any babbling on a SF message board. So give yourself and everyone else a much needed break.

Posted by Troll II on Sep. 08, 2012 @ 6:39 pm

Am not Jesus Christ, and will *not* "shut up"

As a matter of fact, I *haven't* been saying the "same thing here for nine months" because events during that time have led to new revelations regarding Lee intrasigence in this case, and of course because I post on a variety of topics beside this one.

I don't get tired of writing creatively in the service of fairness and justice, because it is one of my great passions in life to do so. And since being passionate about things generally equates to being at least passably good at them, it is no surprise to see you validating my success by expressing dismay at my continuing voice here; as I feel certain is the very same attitude with which the great majority of SFBG readers view your often poisonously disagreeable outputs.

Now run along and get fucked.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 08, 2012 @ 9:25 pm

If you wrote creatively and well - that'd be one thing

But you don't. You're repetitious and you constantly slip into tired ad-hominem attacks when you run out of "facts" to make up. Which happens frequently. You've been writing the same thing, probably over 1000 times at this point, since this whole episode erupted in January. You're not an "influencer" in Klout-speak - you're simply a random poster on a little-read message board thinking you're making a difference when you're not.

Sorry to burst your bubble baby, but you don't matter.

Posted by Troll II on Sep. 08, 2012 @ 10:59 pm

It is amazing

that people come here and think that it makes any difference. It might add to Guardian ad revenue, but who cares really, it's good for a laugh.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 09, 2012 @ 1:49 am

Agreed, Matlock, but what is funny is that Lilli really believes

that what is written here is important and carries influence, which necessitates him respknding to every post critical of ross, regardless of how many times he has uttered the same drivel before.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 09, 2012 @ 11:18 am

It's the exact same thing

If Caitlin thinks it is OK to criminally vandalize a pro-life billboard then, to be consistent, she has to support my right to vandalise Ross's house to indicate his admission to his crimes.

Caitlin and I are on the same page here. We're both equally comfortable with bias as long as it is an expression of free speech.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 8:35 pm

Billboards = doctor's lives?

Right -- compare defacing a billboard with shooting someone dead. It's not a free-speech issue -- IT'S ABOUT WOMEN. Get it? Get off the billboard thing -- no one was hurt. it doesn't matter. Anti-abortion, anti-woman messages should be interrupted at all times.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 4:57 am

Yes, shooting people dead is

Yes, shooting people dead is an example of the domestic terrorism that Janet Reno tolerated during her reign as Attorney General which resulted in a slew of dead doctors and a climate of intimidation which made it so that women in 2/3 of American counties had no practical access to reproductive services.

But down with men, down with the Republicans, Two Minutes Hate must be directed at the Official Enemies!

Posted by marcos on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 7:33 am

If you are the real marcos, and not imp,

please explain the above comment with regard to Janet Reno.

Not a huge Reno fan, but she did create the first task force to look into possible federal crimes with regard to the denial of abortion rights. Might you be over emphasizing the similarity between Republcans and Democrats when you join them with regard to coddling anti-abortion terrorists?

(I mean, if your pupose is to dissuade women from continuing to support Democrats simply based on this one issue despite the Dems massively selling us all out in so many other respects, I understand that and I support it; but I'm not willing to go off into the zone of misrepresenting basic facts for that goal.)

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 8:22 am

A task force is something you

A task force is something you create when you want to demonstrate to your constituency that you care about their issues without having to really do anything on your own to change circumstances. The facts are the facts, that during the Clinton administration, a wave of domestic terrorism practically repealed Roe v. Wade for tens of millions of American women in the flyover.

Obama also signed the Stupak amendment that passed a Democrat House all in order to force us to purchase crap private health insurance and top keep Americans paying the highest prices for drugs on the planet all while leaving tens of millions uninsured.

Reproductive choice is a critical issue for me. I've put my body on the line to make sure that women have access. But women allowed their organizations to drop the ball on educating young women over the past 30 years as to the importance of access to reproductive health services, and that lack of focus, the presumption that gains are permanent, has resulted in a majority of women supporting some form of increased restrictions on abortion.

This is a distinction without a difference.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 9:14 am

"And if a pro-choise billboard had been vandalized...

No, we rejoice because it's a pro-choice message. It's about the horrible content of anti-abortion billboards, etc. This is not a free-speech issue, it's a pro-choice, feminist (meaning the strange idea that women are people, too) message.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 4:52 am

But Will.i.am

is your fellow liberal-bot. One of you needs to be reprogrammed.

Posted by Ruth Bladder Ginsu on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 1:16 pm

Completely

Agree

Posted by caitlin on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 11:53 am

Is this a big issue for you Caitlin?

Becoming pregnant requires having sex with a man, not with a chick or something that requires two AA batteries, so you're prolly safe on that count.

Posted by Troll II on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 12:54 pm

FYI all of Caitlin's sex toys

FYI all of Caitlin's sex toys are powered by cannabis, the NEW green energy. Batteries are so 1.0, just like homophobia and misogyny, hence your familiarity with them.

Posted by Trolllllllll on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 2:57 pm

Neither homophobic nor misogonistic

Caitlin is a muff-bumper who likes sex toys. That's a statement of fact, not a pejorative.

Posted by Troll II on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 3:39 pm

hahahahahahha

Keep going, you're doing great.

Posted by caitlin on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 4:18 pm

I wouldn't mind being referred to as a "muff bumper" either.

Sounds kinda nice.

Posted by guest on Sep. 07, 2012 @ 7:43 pm