Or the most laborious research and production work I ever did. I did it
in two thousand one. I spent weeks collecting and investigating the bands of the
boy bands in the world of that phenomenon that there was, and one of
them left Germany, this one that was from Munich Bowen and sang in German
very good band at the beginning of the two thousand. In Germany it was
very successful and good that research work. I got it fixed, but nothing,
at least there was the memory that everywhere there was a voiba in a
boy bang. Yes, at that time and they all sounded the same,
exactly with the influence of what' s called Te Martin, what' s
called the one that produced The Marketing today, to Bac Srel Boys and Max
Martin. Great, well, one of the best producers in history, that
mess made Vaina. After that, he has continued to produce and has had
a lot of discipleship. Dr. Luke is one of them and others who
also accompanied him to work and are also hiding and succeeding. Look. You
know that with the case of Eugene what is the name of the Seed,
the deputy for the Roman one. Yesterday the PRM lesbian bloc complained deeply and
sent a document for this man to be punished for the expressions he has expressed.
It seems to us that in the country we are licking. The article
contains the Constitution. Before deputy and member of the walls. Mr Sedeño is
a citizen, Dominican, and so you find what you said offensive. He
has every right to say what he said, including what he said on Monday
in an interview, even if it seems offensive to you now if it seems
improperly political for a Member to say that, for we could discuss it,
but he owns his conscience and has the full freedom to express what he thinks.
Having said this about Eugenio de sedeño deputy, yesterday the party also decided
to subject him to disciplinary progress. We had him invited for tomorrow here in
the program and he, who is a very correct and very responsible man,
communicated with us and told us that, since he had this process, he
would then prefer to submit to this question of how he called to discipline of
but everyone has asked the head of Eugenio Cedeño Look what Eugenio Cedeño said has
no value or importance for what really matters. You have noticed how all the
media have focused on saying that he is going to little by little. He
says of the free people today that he is little short of Congress, but
that he has submitted few projects this of two thousand two, being a deputy
for the province of La Romana, and his performance as deputy of key moments
have been very important, because he has defended what has been most convenient for
the Dominican Republic. For example, people who know you still have access to
the beaches, because when the two thousand ten reform was given, Eugenio Cedeño
was that he pointed out that taking away Dominicans access to the beaches and privatizing
Dominican beaches constitutionally was a counterproductive and he defended that and at every moment he
has the opportunity to defend what he believes, he does it without any kind
of complex. I hardly ever agree with the things he defends. We have
agreed on a number of issues in a timely manner, but at this point
where we find ourselves on what the debate begins, which is not what Sedeño
said, what the progressive media in the Dominican Republic has done to concentrate on
what is in form and not in substance. You have read article thirty-
four, one hundred and thirty- four and one hundred and thirty- five
have published it in some way. You' ve heard it, you'
ve read it in its entirety. You have had the chance to weigh whether
what you are drawing attention to to oppose him is part of the Member of
Parliament makes sense. Not yesterday with some friend, with Arturo Recio, did
I get a copy of the bill that by the way, no one finds
it. I had two days and I asked Adriana you' re the pdf.
Around the back of the code, because I wanted to read it,
not a vague quote, in a press release of the Senate or in a
published news that vaguely. I wanted to read the article, because I wanted
to know what they are proposing, what they have put in the article one
hundred and thirty- four and one hundred and thirty- five, which is
what we must discuss. Not what he said cedeño. What I say cedeño
is the rambling of a mouth that he probably didn' t measure. Which
is how to express an example of something that is problematic and we agree that
we have all ate to make of it, but none of us have read
article one hundred and thirty- four and one hundred and thirty- five and
all that is derived from there and below. I read it and what worries
me about the article is, it' s just that it' s all
the ambiguities this article has that could mess up with a lot of problems,
or only for men, also for women. And on Monday I was talking
about this desire, about the progress of the Dominican progressive lesbo, that the
state take care of your TV or take care of or take care of issues
that it does not have to take care of and that it is about choosing
him on issues that it is more than clear that they are issues that no
one will admit or defend. But when you have an article that stays written
in a way that stays the interpretation of whoever wants to use it as a
spearhead to sarar we are having a composing that or a box of pandora that
we don' t know is what you want to express. I can imagine
what the honourable Member wanted to say and perhaps he did not know how to
put it in the right way. Bad for him, because there was a
man, first very well trained and second, who has been working as a
legislator for quite a few years. He should have better skills to be able
to express more clearly perhaps the points he wants to draw attention to, while
PRM lesbians want the head of cedeño and some MPs want him to apologize to
Dominican women, because that is manicheism manipulation. He has to apologize to the
women, but he didn' t offend the women. Or you, deputy,
have the voice of all the women of the Dominican Republic. No one
' s given it to you. You may have the voice of the party
to which you belong or of the group that voted for you, but you
are neither yours nor yours and you have to come to speak for all the
magda women to you that authority has been given to us by no one.
So all the drool we' ve read and seen in even personal attacks,
as I said yesterday to someone, I say is that this is the problem.
I mean, you' re attacking someone' s speech, but you
' re personally attacking him and referring to personal issues that you don' t
know. As I told you, to that good Twitter publicist friend who is
now given a political scholar. So what does article thirty- four say I
' m going to read it carefully for you to listen to and for the
debate to release band- by- seat and ask legislators why this is there
and why it' s not better worded. What' s important. Let
' s hear article 34 of the CODE draft, section 34 of the Penal
Code draft. It says about rape. This section is the section on sexual
rape and the insect article one hundred and thirty- four. Sexual rape I
will read carefully so that I will not see without pause. It constitutes sexual
rape. Any act of sexual penetration perpetrated by one person against another, by
the vagina, by the anus or by the mouth, or by any other
similar act, such as the introduction of an object or part of the body
by either of the first two channels without consent, by violence, constriction,
threat, surprise, deception or by any other means that invalidates or nullifies the
will of the victim or does not allow the victim to express his consent.
Sexual rape shall be punishable by 10 to 20 years' imprisonment and a fine
of 20 to 30 minimum wages in the public sector. The one hundred and
thirty- five who, where the conflict begins, says who, in a
couple relationship, engages in non- consensual sexual activity, will be punished with
the penalties set out in article one hundred and thirty- four, or in
the following cases, if he has used deception, force, violence, intimidation,
threat or coercion, if he has nullified consent, if he has nullified
the consent of the victim, his ability to resist with violence, intimidation,
threat or action, with the use or supply of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances,
chemicals or by any other means that may cause such effects, if the
victim is unable to understand the nature of the act at the time it is
performed because of a mental illness or disability, whether temporary or permanent, if
he has forced or induced the couple with physical or psychological violence, to participate
or engage in an unwanted sexual relationship with third persons, and finally, the
paragraph of this article one hundred and thirty- five. In no case is
a child or adolescent considered to have the capacity to consent to any type of
sexual activity. And this is quite clearly established in the Children' s Code,
that the age of consent is from adulthood, eighteen years, that is
children and adolescents, conscious of being with an adult. For there it raises
essentially what it says in the article begins by saying that in a relationship of
couple engages in sexual activity not consented, it will be punished with the penalties
set out in article one hundred thirty- four. And that' s what
he was talking about, and when the deputy sets the example, let'
s say you' re giving your wife manque and you' re taking off.
The condom has not consented to it. You can get four or ten
years in jail. The rest, well, no, the rest falls off
the kill and there' s also the other part that' s good.
Any other substance. Let' s say that you have a drunk bar,
you go with a drunk majan the broad the other day you can say I
was very drunk maje with him and then you took advantage of my drunk education
and bel tiger prisoner. And that' s not exclusive, nor would it
be the Dominican Republic. This happens in many countries. Then what' s
the matter? So it is the ambiguity of this article that makes it problematic.
And I guess that' s where he was going, but you'
d heard it. The article. I believe that from now on we can
begin to discuss issues that are contained in the article, which would be interesting
to discuss. What I say a genius is irrelevant to the chacha was the
lynching of it and to consider it an energy an irremediable male chauvinist and the
worst, human lineage that can emerge from any of our provinces as legislator.
Maybe for that discussion and to prime ourselves in hatred, in epithets, in
disqualifications, in persecution, in lynching, maybe for that. What he said
is very useful. And that' s why the progressive lesbo in the courtyard
has focused on what he said today, what he denounces. Notice that there
was no newspaper here that published the article, nor any news. He hadn
' t put it in its entirety, and no radio commentator read it here.
What needs to be lynched to Eugene because he made it easy for us
not to forget the debate we have to have about this shit, because this
is what matters. I had a day of myself that I don' t
give a damn what the Member said. In the end, he has the
right to say he wants you to and you take it as you like.
I want to read the article. No, but I' m glad you
said it and that aroused interest. The problem is that here the interest it
has aroused is interested in in inflating it to exactly the others. There is
a question he knows of lynching him, because lynching him distracts him from the
actual discussion that is exactly and this must be a subject of discussion. Let
' s read the article, we' ll discuss it as an adult.
If you want an article with such ambiguous characteristics, very ambiguous characteristics. Now
I' ve confused you. I don' t know whether to report my
urologist or not. Or that you conscious, no, no, yes,
I mean, you know anesthetism, you know, you know the absurdity that
you' ve carried feminism in some countries that in England, for example,
consent during sex must be continuous. How it continues in the middle of sexual
intercourse. I can take the consent with the penis inside and say you'
re raping me or I' m going to justice. It opens a tax
process they have to deal with that and it said at what point and in
what way, that is, continued consent. If we read the article again,
it has a lot of that, well, or what characteristic or what
must happen so that there is no more consent or any nonsense that happens inside
the bedroom. It is already a matter of conflict and persecution. It can
' t be that way, but don' t go, it can'
t be interpretive to an end that you leave the court open for what'
s clear. Lesbians, who are enemies of men who push this to be
included in the Penal Code, will obviously say that one points this out because
one is in favor of rape. I think I' m going to have
a lot that you' re in favor of sexual violence and you' re
going to distort to a point that you' re going to say that you
agree with husbands raping their wives. Or the point of the absurdity that I
saw a person who considered brilliant, a great lawyer who said that a counter
than a marriage act, is not a woman' s property act. But
we are starting from what the honourable Member may have said. I want us
to discuss what the damn article says, that that' s the problem here,
not what it says, it' s not what the attorney- in
- law, who is a deputy, says, it' s also what
the one hundred and thirty- five and one hundred and thirty- four says.
So, if you don' t care about this and you want to
keep blowing Eugenio Cedeño' s head, you have the freedom to do so,
but let' s also deal with this, which is what you are
pointing out is problematic, and let' s ask ourselves then because he came
to the conclusion that it was problematic. Lean, gentlemen peter A, that
but in the United States we go to every time reports of women who say
that their husbands rape her and that ah no, that I didn' t
want to. And twenty years married and you end up in a trial that
ah because when I was married I raped me that I didn' t want
to have sex with him. Who to the justice, to the impossibility of
being able to establish or prove these denunciations. He has to unload the defendants,
because I' m also complex like me exactly how I established that when
I consented, give me very hard, but with condom and in use fifth
you took it off and you gave me the hair and you knocked me up
and how I checked that certainly there was no consent, because also apology for
swimming in a country where you just have to invent that you totally laid my
hand to put him in jail. If you add him up, this is
for me to get pregnant. He and I talked about what I was gonna
do with two. He took it off and knocked me up. That'
s the example that was setting the shot and I think maybe the running example,
because maybe you don' t understand how long we' re living in
communication made it easy for your enemies, because the ceded MP has many enemies,
because he is contrary to what the new orthodoxy, to those who own
the truth and what of the absolute truth in the Dominican Republic they consider as
an irrefutable truth or fact is that you shouldn' t put it to them.
No. What happens is that he, he spoke the easy, He
spoke perhaps ugly, but if he had technically used the language that is used
now, that would have passed that clear persorption, but also what has an
important part. There because yesterday I was listening to the interview they did at
the SETI and they seemed more like the way you watch the movies of the
time of the Holy Inquisition look for you to understand a chinge. This is
what we' re working on in the media and the one who wants to
do an interviewer who reads the Hammer of the Witches. That book is a
very old book and if you don' t want it, I' ll
find out. There' s a summary of the book. I have an
idea, but you can' t take some people to an interview and to
every question, you snoop it and you condition what you want, that he
says, it doesn' t seem honest to me. You may have your
schedule, but you also have to allow the interviewee to get you an answer.
And if at every moment the interviewee is going to complete an answer,
you' re scathing him, because you' re interviewing him. You'
re taking the interviewee to that listener who' s going, to that couple
that the interviewee isn' t telling the question that you' re asking him.
And that' s dishonest, it looks like me. But in the
case of article one hundred and thirty- four and one hundred and thirty-
five, I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the debate there
must be so that lawyers can read it and have a healthy debate in the
light and in the eyes of all citizens and that we can interpret issues that
are problematic in the drafting of this two articles that are and must be in
the interest of people, because it would be clear, directly, to become
more problematic of the relationship between men and women. And I say this because
it is also good for one to see how things are going in other countries.
You know why Julian Assanche fell prisoner Liangasas took a broad and had a
consensual sexual relationship. Then the broad in Sweden says no. I regretted it.
I changed my mind. He did things to me about sex that I
didn' t want and Julian Aseans is being brought to justice You go running
to England in Sweden and get it unloaded He goes to prison in England and
ends up in Ecuador' s embassy for five years in a maximum security prison
and these days he ended up in Australia with an agreement with the United States.
This is the case of Julián Sanchez. They used this case for that
pod. In Canada there are similar laws, but a radio announcer named Gian
Gomechi, who had a relationship with an employee violating what laws and his contract
established that he could not fraternize with subordinates or co- workers, and he
gave him extremely hard. But Gian Gometchi had a particular one and liked violent
sex and these ladies consented to violent sex with him. They reported it.
He went to trial and was unloaded. Justice said here there were two adults
who consented to her after a break- up because she fell in love with
the guy denounces him the foot of his work. He lost his career and
has not been able to make up his life for eight or nine years.
They know doubt of Giango Metchi, one of the most important and famous speakers
in Canada. He worked at CBC on the night of Indian descent and in
the State of the United States, such as California. There are similar laws,
which is continuous consent. I explain to myself that as long as there
are coheres and sex there must be continuously. You must have verbalized that you
agree, if you' re there. If at one point we say we
agree and I say at one point I don' t want to be here,
I can prosecute you for having that I know you there. That'
s trouble. That' s also complicated everything and drunkards, let' s
not talk good about drunks, let' s not talk about it, there
' s a lot of ambiguity in the wording of this article. They argue
that and if we agree that it' s okay, because it' s
okay and if you understand, we should improve it because it' s better.
But not what the deputy said. I' m irrelevant. I will
give an example, in the example of the United Kingdom. In the United
Kingdom consent must be continuous and may be withdrawn at any time during sexual intercourse.
The law provides that if one person withdraws his consent and the other person
continues, as I have just said, it is considered a violation. However,
there are no explicit provisions on withdrawal of consent after the act has ended
in Canada, recognizing that consent must be active and continuous. Which is active
and continuous. If you keep giving me, I want you to give me.
I agree that you give me, that I am with active and continuous
feeling. A follow, follow, follow, follow, follow, no,
no, no. I' m three stitches. You have to ask in
most of these countries that they have these issues in their penal codes, etc.
Finally, it says that in most countries the central concept is in these
countries that consent must be continuous. He can be removed at any time during
sexual intercourse. If the consent is withdrawn and the other person does not stop,
it is considered sexual assault or rape complex topics. Sometimes I was with
him at one point I said no. He kept ejaculating me and I didn
' t agree anymore. She' s going to justice, she' s
filing a rape complaint with you. Then you have to hire a lawyer falls
express. Then you have to find out how to prove yourself if it'
s true that you' re evading or. This evo, because it applies
to same- sex and lesbian couples, is also equal. Sometimes it says
proof if this jeb really doesn' t look at me. I' m
not too complicated, I' m too troublesome. That' s the center
of the discussion. But for example, the example you set of Julian.
There' s no Chian Gomech, there' s one of the women who
were coming to us that said I don' t know what their producer was
like. They had a secret courtship relationship. The guy liked it, violent
sex with orrhoea. I' ll give you a spanking, but I agreed.
I don' t like that, you don' t hate it,
but there are people who like that sex and he liked it. She consented
to all and justice that said well that you agreed. You know Alberto,
sometimes now they can' t come with the excuse that they felt mistreated,
because they could have said before they got to bed with this man, when
they agreed to do all this, that you didn' t want to participate
in that kind of sex. But you consented and went to bed with him
or those conditions and with that agreement. What fucks up is that this women
' s club realizes that this guy who is what those who had no intention
of committing to them and the producer, who was very much in love with
him for revenge, denounce him from the CBC' s human resources management,
is the Canadian public television station and then submit it to him. You see
yourself at the farthest end until the case has been found out. You have
an ugly big league mess. Gian Gometchi had to leave Canada. He moved
to New York and I think he lives from being uber. He was very
rich. He had a lot of money, he had a lot of money
on the CBC, but he doesn' t live in Canada many years ago.
Conspiracy theories that say population control sometimes don' t sound so crazy.
When you see where society is going, you put a partner in there Well,
there it is. Ticle one hundred and thirty- four. Article 135.
That' s the argument. Not if the Member said what he said
and that a group of bitter lesbians who neither husband has that husband have feel
offended by what I say in a way that runs over the Member. It
is the article at the center of the debate, not what the Member said,