Ignoring the mountain of evidence that women initiate physical violence nearly as often as men, VAWA has more than 60 passages in its lengthy text that exclude men from its benefits. For starters, the law’s title should be changed to Partner Violence Reduction Act, and the words “and men” should be added to those 60 sections.
The law should be rewritten to deal with the tremendous problem of false accusations so that its priority can be to help real victims. A Centers for Disease Control survey found that half of all partner violence was mutual, and 282 scholarly studies reported that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men.
Currently used definitions of domestic violence that are unacceptably trivial include calling your partner a naughty word, raising your voice, causing “annoyance” or “emotional distress,” or just not doing what your partner wants. The law’s revision should use an accurate definition of domestic violence that includes violence, such as: “any act or threatened act of violence, including any forceful detention of an individual, which results or threatens to result in physical injury.”
Women who make domestic violence accusations are not required to produce evidence and are never prosecuted for perjury if they lie. Accused men are not accorded fundamental protections of due process, not considered innocent until proven guilty, and in many cases, are not afforded the right to confront their accusers.
Legal assistance is customarily provided to women but not to men. Men ought to be entitled to equal protection of the law because many charges are felonies and could result in prison and loss of money, job, and reputation.
Feminist recipients of VAWA handouts lobby legislators, judges and prosecutors on the taxpayers’ dime (which is contrary toSection 1913 of Title 18, U.S. Code), and the results are generally harmful to all concerned. This lobbying has resulted in laws calling for mandatory arrest (i.e., the police must arrest someone; guess who), of the predominant aggressor (i.e., ignore the facts and assume the man is the aggressor), and no-drop prosecution (i.e., prosecute the man even if the woman has withdrawn her accusation or refuses to testify).
I think this is something that most people never even think about. But we could agree that violence against women is terrible, but still not endorse the feminist-inspired VAWA law as the solution to the problem.
Alliance Defense Fund attorneys representing two German parents filed an emergency order Thursday with the European Court of Human Rights, calling for the mother’s immediate prison release. ADF attorneys filed an appeal on the parents’ behalf last year asking the ECHR to uphold national and international law against the German government’s unlawful incarceration and fines in violation of parental rights.
Heinrich and Irene Wiens chose to keep their four children from attending a mandatory play and four school days of “sexual education” that taught students an extremely permissive view of sexuality. For this they were fined and then sentenced to more than six weeks in prison for refusing to pay. The father already served his prison term. Both parents contend that the programs oppose their Christian beliefs and that forcing their children’s participation is unlawful. ADF has four similar cases before the ECHR, as Irene Wiens is the 10th Christian parent imprisoned.
“Parents, not the government, are the ones ultimately responsible for making educational choices for their children, and jailing them for standing on this universal right is simply unconscionable,” said ADF Legal Counsel Roger Kiska. “Irene Wiens was well within her rights under the European Convention of Human Rights to opt to teach her children a view of sexuality that is in accord with her own religious beliefs, instead of sending them to four days of classes and an interactive play that she found to be objectionable. These types of cases are crucial battles in the effort to keep bad decisions concerning parental rights overseas from being adopted by American courts.”
In June 2006, the Wiens’ objected to their children’s attendance at both a mandatory stage play and four school days of so-called “sexual education” classes. Both parents believed the programs contradicted their sincerely held religious beliefs, as they and their four children are active in the Christian Baptist Church. The Wiens’ kept their children at home during the programs and instead instructed them in their own Christian values on sexuality. The parents were subsequently sentenced by a lower court in June 2008 and both were fined a total of 2,340 Euros (approximately $3,250 U.S.), which they refused to pay on legal and moral grounds. As a result, Heinrich Wiens served 43 days in prison from August 26 to October 6, and Irene Wiens is still serving her 43-day sentence in jail.
School officials allege that the purpose of the compulsory play “Mein Köper Gehört Mir” (My Body Is Mine) was to introduce preventative measures for sexual abuse amongst children. Yet ADF attorneys argue that the play and “sexual education” lessons also promoted a very permissive view of sex and sexuality that strongly contradicts the Wiens’ Christian beliefs. Also, the Wiens’ contend that no scientific proof exists that the programs deter sexual abuse, but that they rather teach children to become sexually active by instructing them to observe their inner feelings of sexuality, ultimately teaching that if something feels good sexually, then it is an acceptable practice.
I really resent paying for teachers to indoctrinate children with their views of sexuality. Shouldn’t I get to keep my money and choose my school? What is the argument for me paying the government directly and taking whatever they give me? I don’t want these people or their sex education. Let me decide what’s best for my future children. I should be allowed to spend the money I earn on whatever I want. I don’t see why I should have to pay for something that doesn’t meet the needs of my future children.
The parents of a 14-year-old girl were sentenced each to 10 days in jail plus a $500 fine on December 9 for using a belt to spank their daughter. They had been found guilty of assault in June of this year, but sentencing was put off until a later date.
The jail time was remitted due to the five days the couple spent locked up after being arrested, according to Quebec Media Inc.
Lawrence Zachow, 60, and his wife Aida Calagui-Zachow, 54, were originally charged with assault with a weapon for the Jan. 15, 2008 spanking. However, Judge Michael Stevens-Guille found them guilty of the lesser offense of assault, saying he understood the parents were disciplining the girl according to their religious beliefs, and not just reacting in anger.
“Whatever one’s belief in higher authority, if you live in Canada you are subject to the laws of Canada as interpreted by the courts, in this case the Supreme Court of Canada,” Stevens-Guille said in the ruling. “Spare the rod and spoil the child is not the byword of the discipline of children in this country in 2010,” he added.
According to QMI, the court was told that the spanking was the result of a confrontation between the parents and the daughter, in ninth grade at the time, over the girl’s admission that she was having sex with her boyfriend. She refused her parents’ request to break off the relationship.
Following the spanking, which the girl told the court did not hurt, she reported her parents to a school official who called the police.
[…]In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada banned spanking of children under 2 and over 12 and criminalized it at any age with an implement such as the common wooden spoon.
I do not agree with spanking a 14-year old. My point in posting this is to show how social engineers in Canada’s most liberal province do not really believe that parents are the authority over their own children. And I think they are especially annoyed by the idea that fathers should be able to push their morality on children because of their authority as provider and moral leader. What incentives does this create for fathers who want their daughters to not act immorally? Does being overridden by the state make men more likely to marry? Does it make men more likely to want to have children? What man takes on a marriage and children when he can be overruled and regulated by the feminist state at any time? Why bother to have children at all, if the state decides what vision of morality the children will be raised with?
Don’t forget the previous story of the daughter who took her father to court for grounding her – and won! She was sending naked pictures of herself on her father’s computer. Is that what fathers can look forward to? And with government approval, no less? Why should a man sign up for that? What is the point? Why bother? Why not just stay single, stop working so hard, and enjoy the freely available sex that is available as the number of fatherless women increases as feminism dominates society more and completely destroys the institution of marriage?
Women think men want to marry as much as they do and for the same reasons, but it’s false. Men marry for respect, and to be recognized as essential, and as the moral and spiritual leader of the home. ALL THESE THINGS are taken away by the feminist state’s regulation of the family. Men today get no respect, no special role as provider, and no authority as leader. They have been replaced and marginalized from their traditional roles, by design. There is really no reason for men to MARRY any more, and no reason for them to take on the burden of parenting. There is nothing in it for men. Women don’t value men, and women vote for social policies that discriminate against men and marginalize them for their traditional roles – substituting government social programs and welfare for husbands and fathers. Imagine – courts overruling the judgment of parents about a 14-year old having sex! Unbelievable! What man wants this? NONE.
This is a question that women today never ask: What is the value proposition for men to marry and raise children?
And there even more to it than that. Presumably, these parents worked for 30 years each paying 40% of their income to the government. That would involve scholarships for these judges and lawyers to got the school. And funding for the courts and the prisons. And funding for public schools to teach their daughter sex education. And funding for public school teachers to call the police on them. Police that are funded by their taxpayer dollars. They literally paid the state to incarcerate them for the crime of disciplining (in an excessive way, granted) their own daughter, who had been indoctrinated by the state’s sex education programs to think that pre-marital sex was normal.
There is something deeply, deeply disturbing about paying for your own execution. And it brings to mind that old sick pre-occupation of the secular left to avoid being judged morally at all costs – the same sickness that causes them to reject the objective moral law. In fact, they would probably find everything that I am saying to be quite odd. Morality? What is morality? These people don’t understand what morality even is. The purpose of life, on their view, is to be happy in whatever way feels right to you. And anyone who tries to form your character to any end should be arrested and put in jail.
WINTERY KNIGHT 