Author Topic: 1994 law: anything a man does that a women disagrees with is Domestic Violence  (Read 7029 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

adam613

  • Guest
Violence Against Women Act Abuses Rights of Men
by Phyllis Schlafly
Posted May 15, 2006
 
In January, President George W. Bush signed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act without public debate, even though evidence has surfaced that Congress should have examined before the law was extended.

The act, which costs nearly $1 billion per year, is one of the major ways former President Bill Clinton bought the support of radical feminists.

Why Republicans passed this bill is a mystery. It's unlikely that the feminists who will spend all that money will ever vote Republican.

Passage of the Violence Against Women Act was a major priority of the American Bar Association for whose members it is a cash cow. More than 300 courts have implemented specialized docket processes to address the cases stemming from the act, more than 1 million women have obtained protection orders from the courts, and more than 660 new state laws pertaining to domestic violence have been passed, all of which produce profitable work for lawyers.

A recently issued ABA document called "Tool for Attorneys" provides lawyers with a list of suggestive questions to encourage their clients to make domestic-violence charges. Knowing that a woman can get a restraining order against the father of her children in an ex parte proceeding without any evidence, and that she will never be punished for lying, domestic-violence accusations have become a major tactic for securing sole child custody.

Voluminous documentation to dispel the feminist myths that created and have perpetuated the act are spelled out in seven reports just issued by an organization called Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting, or RADAR, and in an 80-page report called "Family Violence in America" published by the American Coalition for Fathers & Children.

For example, it is a shocker to discover that acts don't have to be violent to be punished under the definition of domestic violence. Name-calling, put-downs, shouting, negative looks or gestures, ignoring opinions, or constant criticizing can all be legally labeled domestic violence.

The ABA report states flatly: "Domestic violence does not necessarily involve physical violence." The feminists' mantra is, "You don't have to be beaten to be abused."

Advocates of the Violence Against Women Act assert that domestic violence is a crime, yet family courts often adjudicate domestic violence as a civil (not a criminal) matter. This enables courts to deny the accused all Bill of Rights and due process protections that are granted to even the most heinous of criminals.

Specifically, the accused is not innocent until proven guilty but is presumed guilty, and he doesn't have to be convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt." Due process rights, such as trial by jury and the right of free counsel to poor defendants, are regularly denied, and false accusations are not covered by perjury law. The act provides funding for legal representation for accusers but not for defendants.

Those concerned about judicial activism, i.e., judges legislating from the bench, could observe judges doing this every day in domestic violence cases. Every time a judge issues a restraining order, the judge creates new crimes for which an individual can be arrested and jailed without trial for doing what no statute prohibits and what anyone else may lawfully do.

This criminalizing of ordinary private behavior and incarceration without due process follows classic police-state practices. Evidence is irrelevant, hearsay is admissible, defendants have no right to confront their accusers, and forced confessions are a common feature.

Some of these injustices result from overzealous law enforcement officials (sometimes running for office), and some from timid judges who grant restraining orders and deny due process to defendants for fear of being blamed for subsequent violence. Most of this, however, is the result of feminist activism and the taxpayer money given them by Congress.

The ease and speed with which women can get restraining orders without fear of punishment for lying indicates that the dynamic driving domestic-violence accusations is child custody rather than violence. Restraining orders don't prevent violence, but they do have the immediate effect of separating fathers from their children and imprisoning fathers for acts that are perfectly legal if done by anyone else (such as attending a public event at which his child is performing).

The restraining order issued against TV talk show host David Letterman, allegedly to protect a woman who claimed he was harassing her through his TV broadcasts, is a good example of how easy it is to get a court order based on false allegations. Another ridiculous restraining order was issued against celebutante Paris Hilton to protect a man she had bad-mouthed.

Violence Against Women Act money is used by anti-male feminists to train judges, prosecutors and police in the feminist myths that domestic violence is a contagious epidemic, and that men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims. Feminists lobby state legislators to pass must-arrest and must-prosecute laws even when police don't observe any crime and can't produce a witness to testify about an alleged crime.

Assault and battery are crimes in every state and should be prosecuted. But people so accused should be entitled to their constitutional rights. After all, is this America?

Mrs. Schlafly is the author of the new book The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It (Spence Publishing Co).


Offline Shlomo

  • Administrator
  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5212
  • SAVE ISRAEL!
Do you have the link to this article?

Ya... it's sick where the leftist liberals want to take us. Sick. Being a "white male" in today's American society is equal to being on the bottom rung... all in the name of racism.
"In the final analysis, for the believer there are no questions, and for the non-believer there are no answers." -Chofetz Chaim

Offline Shlomo

  • Administrator
  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5212
  • SAVE ISRAEL!
Nevermind, I found it:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2006/05/15/violence_against_women_act_abuses_the_rights_of_men

Ya... George Bush is a giant phoney! He's not even close to being conservative. He's more liberal and politically correct than some Democrats.
"In the final analysis, for the believer there are no questions, and for the non-believer there are no answers." -Chofetz Chaim

adam613

  • Guest
I actuallly read the article from a site called www.mediaradar.org. It is a very interesting and insightful site.

What gets to me besides the fact that many decent hard working American males are being destroyted by this unfair law and this needs to stop you als have many "Orthodox" Rabbi's" support false accusations women make and don't care to get facts from anybody else but what the women says. This is done because women can become an aguna if she is "abused" and the force the man to divorce her even if in reality he never abused her or in some cases the women intentionally try to get the guy upset so she can claim she was abused. The Rabbi's that are involved in this don't want men that aren't doormats in their communities because it is less job security. The women do it so they can be like their gentile neighbors that have "no-fault divorce" another terrible evil in this country.

I certainlly believe there is an occaisonal case of a man really not fulfilling his side of the marriage contract. Buit I go on Jewish single web sites like "Frumster" and I am truly shocked at reading some of the profiles of women who are divorced and "brag" that they are raising children without a father. This is so evil. I also have dated women who were divorced or whose parents were divorced and the comments I heard were unbelievable. If a man had a pimple that was enough for the women to say the man isn't attractive so I can divorce him. One women her parents were divorced told me her father lives alone and isn't popular. That was a reason she didn't respect him. Could you imagine? I can understand if a parent really did something seriously against Judaism and does not care about their flagrant violation of the torah. What a child should do in a case like that I don't know? But a parent isn't popular and lives alone.So what!!!

You also have Jewish so called Kiruv groups like Aish Hatorah that say vicious things about Jewish men. That because men have less Binah therefore women are always right and if a marriage doesn't work it is the man's fault. This is what the Rabbi wrote to me when I complained on the comment section among many many other complaints. This rabbi is one of the leading Rabbi's of this group.

adam613

  • Guest
Yep Yacov. And the feminist supported Bill despite what he did. The women wanted what they got. All Bill's acts was concentual. It is amazing what hypocrits the feminists are because it has more to do with money and power and communism ideology then anything that has to do with so called "equality".

adam613

  • Guest
9/6  press release by www.mediaradar.org on anything and everything being Domestic Violence.

Almost Anything Now Counts as Domestic “Violence,” Report Finds
Last December TV talk show host David Letterman found himself named in a restraining order. The order was granted at the request of Colleen Nestler of Santa Fe, New Mexico. Nestler alleged that for the past 11 years Mr. Letterman had been sending her “thoughts of love” in the form of mental telepathic messages and televised facial gestures.

According to a RADAR Special Report issued today, Letterman’s actions indeed represent domestic “violence,” at least according to the laws of New Mexico. In that state, domestic violence is defined as “Any incident by a household member against another household member resulting in ... severe emotional distress ... [or] harassment.” The law states “cohabitation is not necessary to be deemed a household member.” Any “person with whom the petitioner has had a continuing personal relationship” is a “household member.” So Nestler’s decade-long telepathic relationship with Letterman made him a member of her household, even though he had never heard of her.

RADAR’s report, “Expanding Definitions of Domestic Violence, Vanishing Rule of Law” analyzes the civil domestic violence laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The report concludes that statutory definitions have been widened over the past decade to the point that in most states, almost any action can be viewed as “violent.”

“Domestic violence has become whatever the man does that the woman doesn’t like,” notes RADAR Steering Committee member Lisa Scott of Washington State. “Finding out she is having an affair and demanding she stop is seen as ‘abuse.’ This often triggers the woman to file for a restraining order, where no real evidence is required. In my 18 years of family law practice, I have seen this pattern occur over and over.”

Each year 2-3 million restraining orders are issued in the United States. Half of all restraining orders are issued without even an allegation of physical abuse. In 85% of cases, it is the husband or boyfriend who the target of the order. (http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/VAWA-Restraining-Orders.pdf)

Most orders are issued on an ex parte basis, which precludes the defendant from being present to give his side of the story. Restraining orders require the defendant to vacate the house and restrict contact with his children.

“Expanding Definitions of Domestic Violence, Vanishing Rule of Law” can be viewed at http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/VAWA-Restraining-Orders.pdf.

Persons are asked to share the report with media representatives, state legislators, and judges. Reporters are being asked to write articles that explain the problems of our current domestic violence system; lawmakers should roll back overly-broad definitions of abuse; and judges should demand higher standards of proof before issuing restraining orders.

 

Scriabin

  • Guest
Females are protected by society, men are disposable.  This is why men fight in war and do all the heavy lifting in society. 

One man can impregnate MANY females, and so only a small number of men are needed to repopulate the species.  Females on the other hand can only have one--occasionally two--children at a time. 

Therefore society needs many females in order to survive, and so women are protected.

"Women and children can afford to be careless, but never men."

Scriabin

  • Guest
If a woman dresses like a hooker, wears perfume and uses her body LIKE A WEAPON, there's no problem, but as soon as a man whistles at her its 'SEXUAL HARASSMENT.' ???

Wasn't the man being harassed first?

wonderfulgoy

  • Guest
Females are protected by society, men are disposable.



AMEN!!!!


How many women fight on the frontline for their country's military defence?

And yet, women are among the most vocal opponents of war ... NOT because they value the lives of men more, but because they are the most inclined to complain.  In fact, women will complain about anything and will seriously threaten the stability of society unless placated (Western societies) or kept down (Islamic and Oriental societies).

wonderfulgoy

  • Guest
If a woman dresses like a hooker, wears perfume and uses her body LIKE A WEAPON, there's no problem, but as soon as a man whistles at her its 'SEXUAL HARASSMENT.' ???

Wasn't the man being harassed first?



Not only that but women respond very favourably to 'harassment' from CERTAIN kinds of men.

E.g. white women give black men an easier time in the nightclubs/on the streets than they do for white men.

White women also seem quite happy to let strange negroes near their kids, but are very suspicious of strange white men.

adam613

  • Guest
Scriabin said


>One man can impregnate MANY females, and so only a small number of men are needed >to repopulate the species.  Females on the other hand can only have one--occasionally >two--children at a time. 

>Therefore society needs many females in order to survive, and so women are protected.

>"Women and children can afford to be careless, but never men."
 
   I actually disagree. Yes, women can afford to be careless when you have welfare and other government handouts for unmarried single women that have children that I and other men have to pay for with my taxes. You also have the earned income credit where a women that has 2 children and is not married and only makes about $20,000 gets a $4,000 refund from their tax return which is not taxed. These women don't  mind taking money from the mostly men who run the governmnet.  But the welfare system rewards single mother's and if it wasn't for welfare and giving welfare to single women that have no husband believe me men wouldn't be seen as disposable and women would actually look for decent men to marry rather then marrying a man they can take advandage of and eventually throw him out of his chiildren's lives and get child suport and alimony or get welfare. Do you know that 75% of the "deadbeat dads" are low income and are living in car's or tiny apartments and many times can't afford to pay the excessive child support they are saddled with and are not these rich men trying to punish their wives. Glen Sacks that Jeffguy mentioned had a piece on this. And the Newark Star-Ledger also covered this once in the editorial section.