Indian husbands fall victim to dowry-immigration fraud
Feb 01, 2006
“Everything happened so quickly,” says Pradeep, a tall, trim real estate agent based in the eastern San Francisco Bay Area, recalling his first nervous meeting with Madhu, his bride-to-be, at the Asoka Hotel in New Delhi on Christmas 2002.
He didn’t feel entirely comfortable with her, at first, he explains. “She was kind of quiet. We sat separately, and she didn’t say ‘Hi.’ Instead, she just sat there, biting her nails.”
But he was impressed by something she said. “I asked, ‘What are you looking for in a husband?’ and she said, ‘He should be nice and caring.’ Usually, they ask how much money you make!” tells India-West in an interview at his home.
Pradeep and Madhu (not their real names) were married three weeks later, and she came to live with him in California in May 2003. In some ways, their story is typical — a nonresident Indian man settles in the United States, earns some money, and goes back to India to choose a bride.
But what happened next illustrates a dark side of the non-resident Indian (NRI) marriage story. Pradeep, 31, a naturalized U.S. citizen, says he became the victim of extortion, embezzlement and immigration fraud.
Pradeep and Madhu returned to India in January 2004 at her insistence, so that she could see her family. According to documents Pradeep filed with U.S. immigration authorities, once they arrived at her family’s house, he was drugged, held at gunpoint, and held captive for weeks in an attempt to extort $60,000 and help in obtaining visas to the U.S. for the rest of the family.
Only after his family in the U.S. contacted the New Delhi offices of the FBI, the Diplomatic Security Services and Delhi police, was he able to escape.
Ajay (not his real name), a 27-year-old H1-B high tech worker in New Jersey, told India-West in a phone interview that he met his bride on Shaadi.com. After two years of marriage in the U.S., she said she wanted to return to India to be with her parents and accused him of demanding dowry, he says. Back in India, she filed a complaint against him under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Commonly called“498A,” the section defines the offense of “matrimonial cruelty” and makes demanding dowry a crime.
The law has been a (literal) lifesaver for women who have faced harassment or torture at the hands of their husband or his family, and calls for up to three years’ imprisonment and a fine for offenders. The offense is non-bailable (the accused can remain in police custody at the court’s discretion), and non-compoundable (even if the accuser withdraws her complaint, the court can continue to investigate and prosecute).
It is a simple procedure to file a 498A complaint, and the police must follow up on the complaint, notes Peco Chakravatru, an NRI online columnist, “Filing a 498A is as easy as ordering an idli sambar. Actually, it is easier — the proprietor could refuse to give you an idli sambar but the police cannot refuse.”
In some cases where the accused man has left India, judges have refused bail unless the accused’s family deposits a sum of money in the complainant’s name as a precondition to the grant of bail; some men say their parents have been taken into custody as well. Ajay says he has had to pay a total of $10,000 in legal expenses to keep his own parents in India out of jail.
The number of false dowry claims against men is still overshadowed by the number of dowry deaths and other dowry-related crimes against women in India. A BBC report last year stated that Indian government statistics showed that nearly 7,000 women were killed in 2001 by their husbands and in-laws over inadequate dowry payments.
Bikram Jeet Batra, legal officer for Amnesty International India, writes: “A large number of cases registered under section 498A are subsequently withdrawn though this is not necessarily because they were false. These withdrawals take place for a variety of reasons. At the same time, cases of abuse of section 498A cannot be ruled out.”
Abuse of anti-dowry laws has become serious enough that the United States Department of State has published the following travel warning on its Web site, http://travel.state.gov, about “Dowry/Visa Demands” for travelers to India:
“A number of U.S. citizen men who have come to India to marry Indian nationals have been arrested and charged with crimes related to dowry extraction. Many of the charges stem from the U.S. citizen’s inability to provide an immigrant visa for his prospective spouse to travel immediately to the United States.
“The courts sometimes order the U.S. citizen to pay large sums of money to his spouse in exchange for the dismissal of charges. The courts normally confiscate the American’s passport, and he must remain in India until the case has been settled.”
The warning also adds, “There are also cases of U.S. citizen women whose families force them against their will into marriages to Indian nationals.”
The State Department cannot say how many false complaints are filed each year. However, “The fact that we issued a warning should be an indication of how widespread the problem is,” said John Peters, the department’s Citizen Services Specialist for India. Peters, who is based in Washington, D.C., told India-West that the local American Embassies could provide a list of Indian lawyers in New Delhi.
Angela Aggeler, a spokesperson for the State Department in Washington, D.C., says that “American citizens are often extremely desirable” to Indian families with marriageable daughters.
Still, as in any case where an American citizen is accused of breaking local laws overseas, there is not much that the State Department can do, she told India-West. “Our role in the State Department is maintaining the safety and security of American citizens overseas. That is even more important to us than issuing visas.”
Although the department will do “what we can to ensure fair treatment under local laws, you need to be aware of the laws in that country, regardless of how true the accusations are. It’s incumbent upon [the U.S. citizen] to adhere to the local law.”
Aggeler, who has lived in India, says she empathizes with citizens in this predicament. “I know how complicated the law is in India,” she says. Aggeler says the State Department decided to publish the travel warning after receiving information from the three U.S. embassies in India as well as from local law enforcement agencies and global agencies such as Interpol.
Just as the U.S. State Department’s ability to get involved is limited, so too is that of the Indian Embassy here in the U.S. Akhilesh Mishra, deputy consul general for the Consulate General of India in San Francisco, told India-West: “The Consulate has no specific role or comment on the issue, which has to be addressed through usual legal means.”
The Government of India’s proposed “overseas citizen” dual nationality program may not be much help, either. The State Department’s Web site states: “The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad.”
Palvir Shoker, an attorney in Fremont, Calif., reminds readers that it is required for U.S. citizens traveling to India to register within 14 days at their local Foreigners Registration Office. Shoker, who says that her office has only handled two cases of this type in three years, says she the false dowry accusation and visa extortion problem is not as widespread as commonly believed.
Still, many Indian men who immigrate to the United States would never think to be concerned over whether a “homely, slim, fair” bride advertised in the Times of India or on a marriage Web site might try to extort money or visas out of him.
“I had no idea!” says Ajay. “If I had any idea this was a problem, I wouldn’t have gone back to India (to find a bride). Most girls are honest, but you have to be aware.”
Udit (not his real name), a high-tech worker from Toronto, told India-West, “In India, you’re assumed guilty unless you can prove your innocence. If you’re caught in India, your life is destroyed. It’s a horrible law, 498A. The police are goondas.”
Deepak (not his real name), a 28-year-old computational engineer in the East Bay, describes his early days as an immigrant after coming to UC Berkeley on a study fellowship. “It’s a huge culture shock,” he says over coffee at a neighborhood café. “It’s adjusting to your new surroundings, missing your family. There’s huge pressure to conform, to establish yourself.”
Deepak selected his bride in December 2001 from a list selected by his family, and was engaged within a month. After going home to his native Punjab, he married her the following year. “She had a huge problem adjusting here,” he says. Since his bride had come from a bustling city, the contrast with California’s lonely, wide-open spaces was difficult for her, especially because she wasn’t allowed to work (Deepak, formerly an H-1B visa holder, is now a green card holder).
Although he suspects one of the reasons his wife married him was that she could immigrate to the U.S. (“I learned that she or her parents had arranged the marriage solely to come here,” he says), he wanted to make the marriage work. “It’s typical of Indian families — they hate the word divorce.”
Deepak says his wife started drinking heavily and threatening to kill herself, occasionally calling him frantically at work. After she bit him once during an argument, he called the police. Finally, the two agreed to file for divorce. “She and her family asked an immigration lawyer about the effect the divorce would have on her green card application,” he remembers. “I was being used.”
In February 2004, she returned to India and Deepak had the divorce papers served to her there in May. Soon after, “she filed a case against my parents, my brother, my sister and my sister-in-law, stating that they’d been asking for dowry,” he recalls. She also took some pre-signed checks he’d given her for paying bills, and cashed them at Indian banks, (Deepak showed a reporter a photocopy of one check she’d cashed for $12,000). In her case, his wife accused the family of torture, and said they had demanded “Rs. 10 lakhs [$23,000] or a Honda city car.”
Despite the fact that over two years had passed since the marriage, the police took on the case and started harassing Deepak’s family, he says. “All the genuine cases of dowry start right away, or before the marriage.”
Deepak says he signed a “fairly huge and unfavorable settlement” with his wife, more than $60,000. Plus, the attorney fees here and on behalf of his family in India have “wiped out my 401K and savings,” he says.
Deepak has plans to travel to India over the New Year to see his family, though he doesn’t know what he’ll face when he arrives in India. “The hassles in India have trailed off,” he saya.
In fact he says the very same Punjab police inspector who first took her case changed his mind when presented with the evidence of Deepak’s (and his family’s) innocence. In a document provided to India-West, the inspector writes, “On investigation it is found that there is absolutely no truth regarding the facts mentioned in this complaint.”
Pradeep says his wife has been found guilty of immigration fraud and her father found guilty of smuggling and embezzlement. “Her dad owed people some money. That’s why they wanted all that money from me,” he says. The marriage has been annulled and he has secured a three-year restraining order against his wife, who is now in Delhi.
One of the first widely publicized cases of 498A fraud occurred in 1995, when East Coast physician Dr. Jayakrishna Ambati and his family were accused by his former wife, Archana, of mental and physical torture as well as a dowry demand of $1,200. The Ambati family, well-known community leaders who had founded a charitable educational foundation known as the Ashtavadhani Vidwan Ambati Subbaraya Chetty Foundation, were acquitted in 1999. The case achieved notoriety because of the celebrity status of Jayakrishna’s younger brother, Dr. Balamurali Ambati, who at 17 became the world’s youngest physician in 1995.
A small but vocal community of so-called “498A victims” has been mobilizing over the Internet, trading furious stories and offering help and advice for men who find themselves in that situation.
During his interview with India-West, Deepak’s cell phone kept ringing nearly every five minutes — calls came from men around the country who also claim to have been falsely accused. Deepak plans to launch a Web site so that more NRIs can support each other.
A small but dedicated nongovernmental organization in Bangalore, Sangyabalya, is working to create a dowry-free society and works on behalf of falsely accused individuals in India (see below for its helpline phone number). Sangyabalya’s helpline only operates two hours a night, two nights a week, but still manages to receive up to 10 calls per night.
After all he’s been through, Deepak offers this advice to men desiring an “old-fashioned” Indian girl: “Don’t go to India to get married. There are a lot of great first-generation Indian girls here.
“I see these guys at the airport on their way to India, and I think — they look like poultry going to be slaughtered,” Deepak says with a melancholy laugh.
Mr.Rebates
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Help for Battered Men
What if you’ve been battered? Don’t brush it off or ignore it. Talk about it. Tell someone. Realize that you’re not the only one—a lot of other men are in the same boat! Check out the resources listed below.
Check out Washington’s Domestic Violence Hotline Web page. Ignore the articles about “Information for an Abused Woman” and “Emotional Reactions of Abused Women”—they’ll just make you mad. Their other information, “Am I a Victim” and “Your Personal Safety Plan” works for men as well as women.
Read the "warning signs" on Washington State's Domestic Violence page. (Ignore the sexist references like "his" using espionage tactics on "her" -- it cuts both ways. Ignore, too the comments about "exerting power and control through custody issues" as only involving kidnapping kids or holding them hostage -- false allegations of child abuse and domestic violence are frequent strategies of woman batterers.) Read Erin Pizzey's article Working With Violent Women about "family tyrants." Does the term "family tyrant" resonate with you? Then you need to read this article!
Read our selection of men's personal stories about it. You aren't the only one! Hearing other men's stories, and what they did about it, and what they wished they'd done about it, will help you figure out what to do.
Washington’s Domestic Violence Hotline Web page is at:
The Washington State Domestic Violence Hotline is:
If you find this not to be true, please e-mail me and tell me of your experience. Be sure to include the name and phone number of the shelter service you called, the date(s) and time(s), the person(s) you spoke to, and what they said.
Check out Washington’s Domestic Violence Hotline Web page. Ignore the articles about “Information for an Abused Woman” and “Emotional Reactions of Abused Women”—they’ll just make you mad. Their other information, “Am I a Victim” and “Your Personal Safety Plan” works for men as well as women.
Read the "warning signs" on Washington State's Domestic Violence page. (Ignore the sexist references like "his" using espionage tactics on "her" -- it cuts both ways. Ignore, too the comments about "exerting power and control through custody issues" as only involving kidnapping kids or holding them hostage -- false allegations of child abuse and domestic violence are frequent strategies of woman batterers.) Read Erin Pizzey's article Working With Violent Women about "family tyrants." Does the term "family tyrant" resonate with you? Then you need to read this article!
Read our selection of men's personal stories about it. You aren't the only one! Hearing other men's stories, and what they did about it, and what they wished they'd done about it, will help you figure out what to do.
Washington’s Domestic Violence Hotline Web page is at:
The Washington State Domestic Violence Hotline is:
1-800-562-6025
They can direct you to a local shelter. Have a pencil and paper handy before you call, and take notes. The DSHS Program Manager says that the programs are, by law, to be gender-neutral and offer services to men as well as women.If you find this not to be true, please e-mail me and tell me of your experience. Be sure to include the name and phone number of the shelter service you called, the date(s) and time(s), the person(s) you spoke to, and what they said.
The National Domestic Violence Hotline is:
1-800-799-7233
The woman I spoke to there suggested I have men call that line if they are victims of domestic violence. She says that most DV shelters serve men as well as women.If you find this not to be true, please e-mail me and tell me of your experience.
Check out the Washington and national resources that help battered men.1-800-799-7233
The woman I spoke to there suggested I have men call that line if they are victims of domestic violence. She says that most DV shelters serve men as well as women.If you find this not to be true, please e-mail me and tell me of your experience.
| Washington resources |  |
| Resourses elswehere in the U.S., Canada and around the world | |
| On-line resources | |
Battered Men - The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence (US)
Why Men Don't Do Anything About It?
Here’s some information from Phil Cook’s pamphlet for battered men. (Ordering information: see Phil's Web site. Why not order a handful and try to get your local DV shelter program to put them out?)
HOW MEN COPE
Taking on a macho “I can handle it” attitude. Even if you have been hurt much worse on an athletic playing field, that is not the same thing as being physically attacked by your intimate partner, which hurts emotionally as well as physically. Allowing this pattern to continue can result in depression, substance abuse, loss of confidence, even suicide. (At its worst, It has resulted in death at the hands or a partner or someone induced to kill you by the partner.)“Men Don’t Tell.” This is the actual title of a fact-based CBS TV movie about male victims of domestic abuse. Keeping silent, (not confiding to a friend, relative or professional) is a common reaction of both male and female victims of domestic abuse; it’s embarrassing. Men typically face a greater degree of disbelief and ridicule than do most women in this situation, which helps enforce the silence. Domestic violence victims make excuses for injuries that show (“It was an accident” or “it happened while playing sports”) when friends or medical personnel ask about them.
Hiding From it. Men often escape a bad home life that they are afraid of by spending extra time at work, staying in “their” space (garage, den) at home, or even sleeping in the car or at a friends place.
As my wife and I discussed this and reviewed case histories we're familiar with, we came up with five major, interrelated categories why a man--or a woman--might stay in an abusive relationship:
- Shame
What will my friends, family, colleagues and neighbors think?
What will people think if they knew I let a woman beat up on me?
It's a private matter--belongs in the family
If I say anything, she'll tell everyone I'm the abusive one, and shame me in public
I'm ashamed I'm not strong enough to defend myself.
Everyone knows it's men that are the violent ones (shame of male for being male)
- Self-Worth
I probably deserved it.
This is the best I deserve.
With my looks, or age, or personality, or income, this is as good a relationship as I'll ever be able to get.
- Denial
It's not that bad.
All I have to do is leave the house until she cools down. (That's what TV star Phil Hartman said , before his wife murdered him and killed herself.)
I can weather this one, just like I did the others.
- Reluctance to Give Up the Good
If people got to know her, they'd see what a creative, or loving, or wonderful person she is.
She's like this only some of the time.
The sex is great, and I can put up with being batted around a little.
I'd be lost without a relationship with her.
I'd be lost without a relationship.
- Inertia
It's too hard to do anything.Another reason for staying is to protect the kids. The research shows that people--women as well as men--who assault their partners are likely to assault their children, too. If he leaves, chances are he'll never be able to come back. In today's climate, there's a good chance she'll be able to allege that he has assaulted her or assaulted or even sexually abused the kids, and get a protection order on her say-so, barring him from seeing the kids. This was a common theme in many of the battered men's personal stories here on MenWeb. Sorry, guys, but if you need to come up with a safety plan and plan out a way for you and the kids to leave the abusive relationship, you also need a "dose of reality" about what some of the risks and problems are. They aren't insurmountable problems, and many guys have overcome them, but they are difficult ones.
I'm not ready for that much change in my life.
I'll do it tomorrow, or later, when I'm not so busy.
Sounds like a lot of work--more to take care of than I can handle right now.
Force of habit. I'm used to life the way it is now.
But there's another factor, too. If a man is being battered and trying to protect the kids, and he calls 911, too-frequently he is the one who ends up being arrested. This was another common theme in many of the battered men's personal stories here on MenWeb. At a minimum, he may experience problems getting the police to believe that he's been assaulted or that he needs police help. Family violence researcher Murray A. Straus observes:
Men are also less likely to call the police, even when there is injury, because, like women, they feel shame about disclosing family violence. But for many men, the shame is compounded by the shame of not being able to keep their wives under control. Among this group, a "real man" would be able to keep her under control. Moreover, the police tend to share these same traditional gender role expectations. This adds to the legal and regulatory presumption that the offender is a man. As a result, the police are reluctant to arrest women for domestic assault. Women know this. That is, they know they are likely to be able to get away with it. As in the case of other crimes, the probability of a woman assaulting her partner is strongly influenced by what she thinks she can get away with.One man's story. Why don't men seek help? A male therapist who had to deal with abuse issues in his own life posted an answer to that on Usenet. Doug Flor was formerly a project coordinator for the Department of Child and Family Development and the Adolescent Development Research Program, Institute for Behavioral Research, The University of Georgia
(Video) Council on Women and Girls The White House
Here is the brand new website for the Council on Women and Girls from the White House.
I wonder when the White House will start a Council on Men and Boys?
I wonder when the White House will start a Council on Men and Boys?
Why the Bias against Boys and Men? You mean to tell me there are no Men and Boys who need help and assistants in the USA or the world for that matter?
Lets stop Bias against Men and Boys and lets tell the real truth about Domestic Violence. Men are victims of Domestic Violence as much as Women, only thing is they have no where to turn or people to believe them.
Lets stop Bias against Men and Boys and lets tell the real truth about Domestic Violence. Men are victims of Domestic Violence as much as Women, only thing is they have no where to turn or people to believe them.
An Event to End Violence Against Women VAWA (USA)
Watch Joe Biden talk about VAWA, must watch video.
The Administration • Council on Women and Girls
October 27, 2010
This afternoon, we marked Domestic Violence Awareness Month with the President and Vice President by highlighting the Obama Administration’s unprecedented coordination and cooperation across the entire government to protect victims of domestic and sexual violence and enable survivors to break the cycle of abuse.
For almost 30 years, the month of October has been a time to renew our commitment to ending one of the most tragic and senseless crimes in this country. We were honored to be joined today by a diverse audience from big cities and small towns, from tribes, women’s organizations, survivors, domestic violence and sexual assault advocates, fatherhood programs, law enforcement agencies, and faith communities, all joined by a common purpose- to end violence against women.
Violence is still a significant barrier in many women’s lives, and the Obama Administration is committed to taking concrete action to end domestic violence in this country. One-in-every-four women experiences domestic violence during their lifetimes and more than 20 million women in the U.S. have been victims of rape.
Children suffer, too. Joe Torre, legendary baseball manager, spoke today about growing up in an abusive household; being afraid to come home when he saw his father’s car parked in front of the house; and how he found refuge in baseball.
Issues like this one remind us that there is still work to be done if we’re going to make the promise of America real for every American – including women. That’s why, last year, President Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls. He gave the Council an important mission – to make sure that all federal agencies consider the needs of women in every policy, in every program and in every piece of legislation he supports. Because of our focus on women and girls across the Administration, we have unprecedented coordination in the fight against domestic violence.
Today, the Department of Justice, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Treasury, Labor and FDIC announced new initiatives to protect victims of abuse and provide resources for families and communities to prevent abuse. Domestic violence and sexual assault are not just criminal justice issues – the scope and far-reaching effects of violence require a coordinated response across the Federal government.
The initiatives announced and highlighted today demonstrate a broad, comprehensive response to reducing violence against women. Specifically, these concrete actions include steps to:
Additional details on how the Obama Administration is working to end violence against women can be found by downloading the fact sheet: Obama Administration Highlights Unprecedented Coordination across Federal Government to Combat Violence Against Women (pdf).
The Administration • Council on Women and Girls
October 27, 2010
This afternoon, we marked Domestic Violence Awareness Month with the President and Vice President by highlighting the Obama Administration’s unprecedented coordination and cooperation across the entire government to protect victims of domestic and sexual violence and enable survivors to break the cycle of abuse.
For almost 30 years, the month of October has been a time to renew our commitment to ending one of the most tragic and senseless crimes in this country. We were honored to be joined today by a diverse audience from big cities and small towns, from tribes, women’s organizations, survivors, domestic violence and sexual assault advocates, fatherhood programs, law enforcement agencies, and faith communities, all joined by a common purpose- to end violence against women.
Violence is still a significant barrier in many women’s lives, and the Obama Administration is committed to taking concrete action to end domestic violence in this country. One-in-every-four women experiences domestic violence during their lifetimes and more than 20 million women in the U.S. have been victims of rape.
Children suffer, too. Joe Torre, legendary baseball manager, spoke today about growing up in an abusive household; being afraid to come home when he saw his father’s car parked in front of the house; and how he found refuge in baseball.
Issues like this one remind us that there is still work to be done if we’re going to make the promise of America real for every American – including women. That’s why, last year, President Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls. He gave the Council an important mission – to make sure that all federal agencies consider the needs of women in every policy, in every program and in every piece of legislation he supports. Because of our focus on women and girls across the Administration, we have unprecedented coordination in the fight against domestic violence.
Today, the Department of Justice, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Treasury, Labor and FDIC announced new initiatives to protect victims of abuse and provide resources for families and communities to prevent abuse. Domestic violence and sexual assault are not just criminal justice issues – the scope and far-reaching effects of violence require a coordinated response across the Federal government.
The initiatives announced and highlighted today demonstrate a broad, comprehensive response to reducing violence against women. Specifically, these concrete actions include steps to:
- Protect Children and Break the Cycle of Violence
- Improve Legal Protections for Victims of Domestic Violence
- Increase Sexual Assault Arrests and Successful Prosecutions
- Help Victims Regain Housing and Financial Independence
Those are just a few of the steps we’re taking. But the bottom line is this: No one in America should live in fear because they are unsafe in their own home – no adult, no child. And no one who is the victim of abuse should ever feel as though they have no way to get out. We need to make sure that every victim of domestic violence knows that they are not alone; that there are resources available to them in their moment of greatest need. As a society, we need to ensure that if a victim of abuse reaches out for help, we are there to lend a hand.That’s not just a job for government. That’s a job for all of us. Thanks to all of you for the work you do in our communities. This Administration is going to stand with you in this fight every step of the way.
Additional details on how the Obama Administration is working to end violence against women can be found by downloading the fact sheet: Obama Administration Highlights Unprecedented Coordination across Federal Government to Combat Violence Against Women (pdf).
(Video) RADAR and VAWA (US)
This is a must watch video.
Bernard Chapin here with Volume 53 of Chapin's Inferno called "RADAR and VAWA." If you need to get a hold of me I'm at veritaseducation@gmail.com.
Here's the link to RADAR's site: http://mediaradar.org/
Book:
http://www.amazon.com/Women-Theory-Pr...
Bernard Chapin here with Volume 53 of Chapin's Inferno called "RADAR and VAWA." If you need to get a hold of me I'm at veritaseducation@gmail.com.
Here's the link to RADAR's site: http://mediaradar.org/
Book:
http://www.amazon.com/Women-Theory-Pr...
Woman files case against daughter-in-law
Nov 12, 2010
72-yr-old says daughter-in-law frequently beat her up, turned her out of her home; bahu says opposite is true
A 72-Year-old woman has filed a case against her daughter-in-law under the Domestic Violence Act.
Complainant Kanta Sudhakar Sharma claimed her daughter-in-law Ruby had beaten her up frequently and extorted money from her on several occasions.
Counter-allegation
Ruby had another story to tell, saying it was she who was the aggrieved party.
"My husband Ajay is living with another woman and is hand-in-glove with his mother. Both have plotted to force me to leave home," said Ruby. "For this man I left my family and changed my religion. But when they asked for dowry and harassed me, I did not bow to their demands. Now that he has found someone else, he and his mother are trying every trick to force me to vacate my flat."
Kanta refuted the allegations. She said she had filed a police complaint at the Hinjewadi police station
in October 2009, but found the police took no action.
She then filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act 2005, under Sections 18, 19 and 23, seeking restoration of her legal right to live in the property which she jointly owns with her son.
"Ruby mortgaged my flat for Rs 10 lakh without consulting me. My son left home after he was subjected to continuous torture by my daughter-in-law," said Kanta. "He has sent her a notice for restitution of conjugal rights in May this year. Even after I was driven out of my home, my daughter-in-law continued to demand money to pay the electricity bill."
Kanta has also sought police protection and Rs 5,000 monthly maintenance from her son and daughter-in-law.
Legal position
Her lawyer, Advocate Dinkar Bhavsar said his client would continue to fight for justice.
"We filed a case on August 2 this year. My client has filed a case against her daughter-in-law and son after she was shown the door. We are talking about a complainant who is 72, is a blood pressure patient and has
been frequently beaten up," said Bhavsar. "The respondent even took objection, saying that the respondent in
a domestic violence case can not be a woman, but according to the law the respondent can be any person related to the husband. In this case the respondents are the son and his wife."
Ruby said it was difficult for her to go through the tormenting situation.
"Whatever she says is a lie. I got married to Ajay in 2005, changed my religion and became Hindu for them," said Ruby. "Ajay is living with the other woman and whatever my mother-in-law is doing is just to vacate the flat. Ajay even stooped to the level of calling me just to force me to listen to him making love to the other woman."
72-yr-old says daughter-in-law frequently beat her up, turned her out of her home; bahu says opposite is true
A 72-Year-old woman has filed a case against her daughter-in-law under the Domestic Violence Act.
Complainant Kanta Sudhakar Sharma claimed her daughter-in-law Ruby had beaten her up frequently and extorted money from her on several occasions.
Counter-allegation
Ruby had another story to tell, saying it was she who was the aggrieved party.
"My husband Ajay is living with another woman and is hand-in-glove with his mother. Both have plotted to force me to leave home," said Ruby. "For this man I left my family and changed my religion. But when they asked for dowry and harassed me, I did not bow to their demands. Now that he has found someone else, he and his mother are trying every trick to force me to vacate my flat."
Kanta refuted the allegations. She said she had filed a police complaint at the Hinjewadi police station
in October 2009, but found the police took no action.
She then filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act 2005, under Sections 18, 19 and 23, seeking restoration of her legal right to live in the property which she jointly owns with her son.
"Ruby mortgaged my flat for Rs 10 lakh without consulting me. My son left home after he was subjected to continuous torture by my daughter-in-law," said Kanta. "He has sent her a notice for restitution of conjugal rights in May this year. Even after I was driven out of my home, my daughter-in-law continued to demand money to pay the electricity bill."
Kanta has also sought police protection and Rs 5,000 monthly maintenance from her son and daughter-in-law.
Legal position
Her lawyer, Advocate Dinkar Bhavsar said his client would continue to fight for justice.
"We filed a case on August 2 this year. My client has filed a case against her daughter-in-law and son after she was shown the door. We are talking about a complainant who is 72, is a blood pressure patient and has
been frequently beaten up," said Bhavsar. "The respondent even took objection, saying that the respondent in
a domestic violence case can not be a woman, but according to the law the respondent can be any person related to the husband. In this case the respondents are the son and his wife."
Ruby said it was difficult for her to go through the tormenting situation.
"Whatever she says is a lie. I got married to Ajay in 2005, changed my religion and became Hindu for them," said Ruby. "Ajay is living with the other woman and whatever my mother-in-law is doing is just to vacate the flat. Ajay even stooped to the level of calling me just to force me to listen to him making love to the other woman."
Pay Rs500 for information under RTI Act 2005 from Allahabad High Court
Nov 11, 2010
In Andhra Pradesh High Court, it is Rs 25. In Delhi High Court, Rs 50. Madras High Court charges Rs 10 while in Allahabad High Court, it is Rs 500. We are here talking about the amount one has to pay for seeking information under Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. And that is not all. The whopping amount is just for one particular piece of information sought. It means that if one wants answers to five different questions, he may end up paying Rs 2500!
Amidst doubts about the court's willingness to part with information, many RTI activists including advocates and civil society members have been taking up the issue and had filed petitions. They say that the rules completely dilute the provisions and discourage people from making full use of the provisions of the act. The fee, however, still continues to be the same. "The High Court rules defeat the entire purpose of the act. I have even filed a petition in the High Court regarding the matter," says Arvind Kejriwal, RTI campaigner.
"Though the court is authorised to fix the fee, the act also says that it should be reasonable. This rate is unreasonably high," he adds.
Notably, under the RTI Act, heads of different government institutions are allowed to frame their own rules to implement its provisions. Section 28 of the RTI Act empowers the competent authorities including courts to set an application fees payable with public information officer of the court concerned before filing an application form. Making full use of its powers, the high court has pegged the fee at Rs 500 per item for a single application. There is also an additional charge of Rs 15 per page of the information sought. Though many other courts including Patna High Court also charges Rs 500 but only in specific cases like information related to tenders, bids, quotations etc.
"The fee is very high as compared to other states. I have challenged the decision," RK Jain, advocate form Allahabad, says.
Rule number 4 of Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2005 reads, "Each application shall be accompanied by cash or draft or pay order of R 500 in favour of the registrar general, High Court, Allahabad or district judge of the concerned district court".
A ruling by a full bench of the commission, headed by Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Justice MA Khan (September 24, 2007) requested the High Court to change the exorbitant fee being charged by the court for a single item in an applciation.
"While pursuing many requests from public regarding the huge fees being sought, we came to know that the fee was too much. We requested the High Court to bring down the charges," Gyanendra Mishra, state information commissioner and one of the bench members of the hearing.
When contacted Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court Subodh Kumar said, "We have set the fees in the capacity of a competent authority. A recommendation received from State Information Commission in this connection was also rejected."
In Andhra Pradesh High Court, it is Rs 25. In Delhi High Court, Rs 50. Madras High Court charges Rs 10 while in Allahabad High Court, it is Rs 500. We are here talking about the amount one has to pay for seeking information under Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. And that is not all. The whopping amount is just for one particular piece of information sought. It means that if one wants answers to five different questions, he may end up paying Rs 2500!
Amidst doubts about the court's willingness to part with information, many RTI activists including advocates and civil society members have been taking up the issue and had filed petitions. They say that the rules completely dilute the provisions and discourage people from making full use of the provisions of the act. The fee, however, still continues to be the same. "The High Court rules defeat the entire purpose of the act. I have even filed a petition in the High Court regarding the matter," says Arvind Kejriwal, RTI campaigner.
"Though the court is authorised to fix the fee, the act also says that it should be reasonable. This rate is unreasonably high," he adds.
Notably, under the RTI Act, heads of different government institutions are allowed to frame their own rules to implement its provisions. Section 28 of the RTI Act empowers the competent authorities including courts to set an application fees payable with public information officer of the court concerned before filing an application form. Making full use of its powers, the high court has pegged the fee at Rs 500 per item for a single application. There is also an additional charge of Rs 15 per page of the information sought. Though many other courts including Patna High Court also charges Rs 500 but only in specific cases like information related to tenders, bids, quotations etc.
"The fee is very high as compared to other states. I have challenged the decision," RK Jain, advocate form Allahabad, says.
Rule number 4 of Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2005 reads, "Each application shall be accompanied by cash or draft or pay order of R 500 in favour of the registrar general, High Court, Allahabad or district judge of the concerned district court".
A ruling by a full bench of the commission, headed by Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Justice MA Khan (September 24, 2007) requested the High Court to change the exorbitant fee being charged by the court for a single item in an applciation.
"While pursuing many requests from public regarding the huge fees being sought, we came to know that the fee was too much. We requested the High Court to bring down the charges," Gyanendra Mishra, state information commissioner and one of the bench members of the hearing.
When contacted Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court Subodh Kumar said, "We have set the fees in the capacity of a competent authority. A recommendation received from State Information Commission in this connection was also rejected."
Childrens Rights Picture Show
WE ARE FIGHTING FOR RIGHTS OF 500 Million CHILDREN OF INDIA. THATS MORE THAN TOTAL POPULATION OF INDIA AT THE TIME OF INDEPENDENCE WHICH WAS JUST 350 Million.. LETS JOIN THE MOVEMENT.. VANDE MATRAM
child rights picture show
View more presentations or Upload your own.
Friday, November 12, 2010
(Video) Restraining Order 911- How to fight a restraining order against you 1-3(US)
Get help with your restraining order now. Learn how to fight false restraining orders. Find protective order tips to prove your innocence here. This is for the United States mostly.
A Restraining Order is issued every 32 seconds! The Restraining Order is the nuclear weapon of the Divorce Industry. If you have a Restraining Order, you could go to jail! This is the rarest of circumstances! An actual conviction for perjury in a domestic relations case.
A Restraining Order is issued every 32 seconds! The Restraining Order is the nuclear weapon of the Divorce Industry. If you have a Restraining Order, you could go to jail! This is the rarest of circumstances! An actual conviction for perjury in a domestic relations case.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
(Video) Innocent men permanently on restraining order registry (US)
A report about falsely accused men who have found themselves permanently placed on a restraining order registry.
http://antimisandry.com/
http://www.glennsacks.com/
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/
http://www.mediaradar.org/
http://antimisandry.com/
http://www.glennsacks.com/
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/
http://www.mediaradar.org/
STOP I-VAWA imediately (Sign Petition)
Sign the petition by going to the link below and sign the petition immediatly to stop more draconian gender baised laws taking effect. I-VAWA stands for International Violence Against Women Act.This bill will have International implications for Men and Families the world over, so everyone needs to sign this please.
Sign Petition to stop I-VAWAhttp://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stop_cedaw_and_i-vawa
Friends, My GOD!!! This is much more dangerous than I was thinking…Many women organizations across world are pushing for this in a co-ordinate way…Draft version of the bill does not say a word about violence against MEN. Believe me we need to mark our strong protest. I am sure Gorky and other senior members are chalking out a strategy for all of us but it is the duty and responsibility of each of us to contribute and do our bit to stop this. Before discussing further please understand the seriousness of the problem.
STOP I-VAWA
http://www.mediaradar.org/radar_flyers.php
Sign Petition to stop I-VAWA
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stop_cedaw_and_i-vawa
Just Google I-VAWA and you know they have already done planning to…
…Finish MEN…
…Make MEN slave…
…To make further gender biased laws…
…Accelerate the process of misuse…
So what we need to do?
I am spending some time on it to come up with simple ways for our members to participate and mark our protest…
They are…
- Poll – One initiative is open on http://bhavyafoundation.org/
- Send protest letters
- Send protest emails
- Each blog of all members will host protest letters
- Write comments for each article
- Start collecting mass signatures against it. We will do it tomorrow at Candle Light Protest
- All websites to put flash news (blinking) on the home page
Guys believe me, at first I did not understood the seriousness of the problem. If this bill is passed then it is going to be disaster.
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARflyer-Why-Stop-CEDAW-IVAWA.pdf
Why We Must Stop CEDAW and I-VAWA
Senator Joe Biden will soon be introducing two bills that, if passed, will worsen our domestic violence
programs and lead to family break-up:
1. CEDAW
CEDAW is a treaty promoted by the United Nations. CEDAW stands for the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. General Recommendation #19 of CEDAW addresses Violence
Against Women. The recommendation does not say anything about violence against men:
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm#recom19
If CEDAW is ratified by the Senate, then a U.N. compliance committee would be empowered to review a broad
range of U.S. domestic laws and request that changes be made. Passage of CEDAW would make it more
difficult to reform the Violence Against Women Act.
2. International Violence Against Women Act
Senator Biden’s companion bill is the International Violence Against Women Act – I-VAWA for short. IVAWA
is based on a one-sided survey by the World Health Organization that didn’t bother assess male
victimization.
I-VAWA would be used to funnel U.S. taxpayer money to CEDAW-mandated programs around the world.
More information about I-VAWA is available from the Family Violence Prevention Fund:
http://www.endabuse.org/programs/printable/display.php3?NewsFlashID=771
What Can I Do to Stop CEDAW and I-VAWA?
CEDAW and I-VAWA are based on the myth that only men commit domestic violence and only women are
victims. But research paints a very different picture: women are at least as likely as men to engage in partner
abuse: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41H3a.pdf
RADAR’s Special Reports document how domestic violence programs in the United States violate the civil
liberties of the falsely-accused, discriminate against many victims of abuse, weaken families, and harm children.
Plus, these programs are ineffective in stopping abuse and may actually place victims at greater risk of violence.
CEDAW and I-VAWA are two bills with innocent-sounding names that would break up families, harm children,
and worsen the injustices of the current system. Help get the truth out about the destructive effects of CEDAW
and I-VAWA: http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARflyer-CEDAW-and-IVAWA.pdf
And contact your elected officials today. Tell them to protect families and children. Tell them to “Vote
‘No’ on CEDAW and I-VAWA.”
Actual bill…
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h5927ih.txt.pdf
Protest…
http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20080527.php
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARflyer-CEDAW-and-IVAWA.pdf
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARflyer-Why-Stop-CEDAW-IVAWA.pdf
http://498amisuse.wordpress.com/category/stop-i-vawa/
Study show MEN are victims of DV
http://www.mediaradar.org/media_fact_sheet.php
VAWA Harms African-American Communities
VAWA Harms African-American Communities
CEDAW and I-VAWA: Double-trouble for families
Senator Joe Biden kicked off his improbable run for the White House with the pronouncement that Illinois senator Barack Obama was sufficiently "clean" to serve as a worthy opponent -- reassuring news to Mr. Obama, I'm sure.
Now we're ready for some serious, issues-oriented campaigning.
As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Biden soon will be proposing a treaty that would place all U.S. domestic policy under the scrutiny of a United Nations oversight committee.
The treaty goes by the innocent-sounding name, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women – CEDAW for short -- and presents itself as an international "bill of rights" for women. Who could possibly be against that?
A report from the International Women's Rights Action Watch revealed far more than it intended: "the CEDAW Convention [emphasizes that] the measure of a state's action to secure the human rights of women and men needs to ensure equality of results [these three words in bold] . . . Thus, the state is obligated to show results, not just stop at frameworks of equality that are strong on paper."
In other words, complementary and mutually-respectful roles of men and women would be phased out in favor of the gender-less society. Scary, but that's what they really want.
But there's a sticking point to this utopian design. Motherhood has a funny way of discouraging women from putting in 60-hour work weeks, doing long-haul truck runs, and trying to scale the corporate ladder.
Feminists understand that, so their solution is to break up marriages (all the harder for women to get pregnant). And at the sign of the first playful tug, CEDAW advocates would cart the woman off to her neighborhood abortionist.
Promoting abortions may seem easy, but breaking up the family, the foundational unit of society, is not. So feminists have seized on the issue of "domestic violence" – and that's where I-VAWA comes in.
I-VAWA stands for the International Violence Against Women Act. By now you have probably guessed that Senator Joe Biden is planning to introduce this bill, as well. And who in their right mind could oppose a bill with that name?
Experience shows that domestic violence programs have a lot more to do with breaking up families than curbing partner abuse.
According to the latest report from the Department of Justice, only 2% of domestic violence incidents involve married couples in an intact relationship. But to weaken the bonds of holy matrimony, the Purveyors of Pink Paranoia must convince women that their husbands are actually closet batterers.
Case in point is Claudia Garcia-Moreno, director of the WHO Multi-Country Study on Women's Health, who made this startling claim: "We found that women's greatest risk of violence is from a partner."
Not so fast, Ms. Garcia-Moreno -- time to bring in the Truth Squad.
According to the landmark World Health Organization's Report on Violence and Health, half a million women die each year from intentional violence. But when you work through the numbers, only about 13% of those deaths involved homicides committed by husbands or boyfriends.
So right there Garcia-Moreno is way off the mark. But the WHO logic gets even more loony.
Because you have to realize that the WHO defines "violence" far more broadly than you or I could ever imagine. The WHO claims with a straight face that violence includes "those acts that result from a power relationship" that includes all types of "psychological abuse."
And we know those all-powerful patriarchs constantly lord it over their downtrodden wives and girlfriends. Which basically means all male-female relationships are abusive.
So if your wife got inspired to do a little Janet Jackson number during Sunday's Super Bowl and, heaven forbid you told her to lay off -- fella, you just committed domestic violence!
Once women begin to view everything through the prism of gender, power, and abuse, it's no surprise that they look to the Nanny State as a substitute husband.
And that's what's going to happen to the rest of the world if we let candidate Joe Biden have his way with the International Violence Against Women Act.
Now we're ready for some serious, issues-oriented campaigning.
As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Biden soon will be proposing a treaty that would place all U.S. domestic policy under the scrutiny of a United Nations oversight committee.
The treaty goes by the innocent-sounding name, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women – CEDAW for short -- and presents itself as an international "bill of rights" for women. Who could possibly be against that?
But like all things feminist, what you see is not what you get. Because when the rad-fems espouse equality, they are not referring to equal opportunity.
A report from the International Women's Rights Action Watch revealed far more than it intended: "the CEDAW Convention [emphasizes that] the measure of a state's action to secure the human rights of women and men needs to ensure equality of results [these three words in bold] . . . Thus, the state is obligated to show results, not just stop at frameworks of equality that are strong on paper."
In other words, complementary and mutually-respectful roles of men and women would be phased out in favor of the gender-less society. Scary, but that's what they really want.
But there's a sticking point to this utopian design. Motherhood has a funny way of discouraging women from putting in 60-hour work weeks, doing long-haul truck runs, and trying to scale the corporate ladder.
Feminists understand that, so their solution is to break up marriages (all the harder for women to get pregnant). And at the sign of the first playful tug, CEDAW advocates would cart the woman off to her neighborhood abortionist.
Promoting abortions may seem easy, but breaking up the family, the foundational unit of society, is not. So feminists have seized on the issue of "domestic violence" – and that's where I-VAWA comes in.
I-VAWA stands for the International Violence Against Women Act. By now you have probably guessed that Senator Joe Biden is planning to introduce this bill, as well. And who in their right mind could oppose a bill with that name?
Experience shows that domestic violence programs have a lot more to do with breaking up families than curbing partner abuse.
According to the latest report from the Department of Justice, only 2% of domestic violence incidents involve married couples in an intact relationship. But to weaken the bonds of holy matrimony, the Purveyors of Pink Paranoia must convince women that their husbands are actually closet batterers.
Case in point is Claudia Garcia-Moreno, director of the WHO Multi-Country Study on Women's Health, who made this startling claim: "We found that women's greatest risk of violence is from a partner."
Not so fast, Ms. Garcia-Moreno -- time to bring in the Truth Squad.
According to the landmark World Health Organization's Report on Violence and Health, half a million women die each year from intentional violence. But when you work through the numbers, only about 13% of those deaths involved homicides committed by husbands or boyfriends.
So right there Garcia-Moreno is way off the mark. But the WHO logic gets even more loony.
Because you have to realize that the WHO defines "violence" far more broadly than you or I could ever imagine. The WHO claims with a straight face that violence includes "those acts that result from a power relationship" that includes all types of "psychological abuse."
And we know those all-powerful patriarchs constantly lord it over their downtrodden wives and girlfriends. Which basically means all male-female relationships are abusive.
So if your wife got inspired to do a little Janet Jackson number during Sunday's Super Bowl and, heaven forbid you told her to lay off -- fella, you just committed domestic violence!
Once women begin to view everything through the prism of gender, power, and abuse, it's no surprise that they look to the Nanny State as a substitute husband.
That's what's going on in India, courtesy of the 2006 Domestic Violence Act. That's what is occurring in the United States, thanks to the Violence Against Women Act.
Will Biden Lead The Way To More Feminist Pork?
The feminists have cooked up a new plan to raid the U.S. Treasury for more feminist pork. They want Congress to pass the I-VAWA (International Violence Against Women Act).
They are using a report issued in October by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called "In-Depth Study on All Forms of Violence Against Women." The report is said to be based on interviews with 24,000 women conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO).
Who better to introduce I-VAWA than Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), the leading advocate of ratification of CEDAW (the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women)? Biden never saw a UN treaty or a radical feminist spending bill that he didn't like.
The WHO report asserts that one in three of the world's women, in some countries as many as 70 percent, experience violence in their lifetime, usually from their own partner, which is the rationale for calling it domestic violence. I'm surprised the feminists don't claim 100 percent, since "violence" is broadly defined to include non-physical "psychological and economic" actions.
Biden says the "statistics are appalling." Indeed they are. But it doesn't follow that the solution is the UN "In-Depth" report's demand for "consultation with women's [i.e., feminist] groups" with "adequate funding streams" to develop "international standards" for all nations.
A new feminist front group called the Women's Edge Coalition is partnering with Amnesty International U.S. to lobby for congressional passage of I-VAWA which, of course, would create new millions of dollars of feminist pork. I-VAWA's stated mission is to carry out a campaign of policy advocacy and education, consulting with dozens of U.S organizations, grassroots organizing, and working with strategic media partners (i.e., getting the media to do their propagandizing).
You can bet that a primary purpose of I-VAWA money will be to lobby the U.S. Senate for ratification of CEDAW so that its UN monitoring committee can force U.S. compliance with feminist goals. That agenda includes everything from requiring unlimited abortion rights to rewriting our school textbooks to eliminate all so-called "stereotypes" and gender-specific references.
Our Senators are taunted with the assertion that the United States should be embarrassed because 185 countries have ratified CEDAW, while we have not. I'm glad the Senate so far has had the good sense to reject a treaty that fraudulently makes naive people believe it will improve the lot of American women.
Pakistan has ratified CEDAW. That's the country where a tribal council ordered a young woman gang-raped to avenge her brother's crime of being seen with an unchaperoned woman from another tribe. Gang rape is common in Pakistan.
Nigeria has ratified CEDAW. That's a country where women are stoned to death for the crime of adultery. Islamic law, called Shariah, calls for death to women who commit adultery, but a lesser punishment for adulterous men.
Saudi Arabia has ratified CEDAW. That's the country where 14 girls died inside a Mecca school that went up in flames. Religious police kept rescuers from entering the building because some of the girls were not wearing their head coverings.
Colombia has ratified CEDAW. That's a country where thousands of women a year are sold into sex slavery. Similar outrages take place in India, Nepal and Thailand, which have also ratified CEDAW.
All these countries are eligible to sit on CEDAW's monitoring committee of 23 "experts" who monitor "progress" and order compliance. All UN projects to improve the lot of women follow the feminist model: break up the family, force women into the workforce, and send kids to daycare.
I-VAWA is based on the lie that violence against women is the same problem in all countries. Many non-Western countries have social norms that justify abuse (such as genital mutilation, forced marriage, and polygamy), and "international standards" would vastly diminish the rights and benefits American women now enjoy.
American women are the most privileged class of people on the face of the earth. That's because we are the beneficiaries of the Judeo-Christian civilization, including the requirement in the Ten Commandments to honor mothers and the Christian religion that honors the Virgin Mary and respects women.
Mark Steyn presents a good idea in his new book called "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It." Since the majority of women in European battered women's shelters are Muslim, he suggests that a serious push for women's rights in the Islamic world could destabilize Islamic regimes such as Iran.
They are using a report issued in October by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called "In-Depth Study on All Forms of Violence Against Women." The report is said to be based on interviews with 24,000 women conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO).
Who better to introduce I-VAWA than Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), the leading advocate of ratification of CEDAW (the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women)? Biden never saw a UN treaty or a radical feminist spending bill that he didn't like.
The WHO report asserts that one in three of the world's women, in some countries as many as 70 percent, experience violence in their lifetime, usually from their own partner, which is the rationale for calling it domestic violence. I'm surprised the feminists don't claim 100 percent, since "violence" is broadly defined to include non-physical "psychological and economic" actions.
Biden says the "statistics are appalling." Indeed they are. But it doesn't follow that the solution is the UN "In-Depth" report's demand for "consultation with women's [i.e., feminist] groups" with "adequate funding streams" to develop "international standards" for all nations.
A new feminist front group called the Women's Edge Coalition is partnering with Amnesty International U.S. to lobby for congressional passage of I-VAWA which, of course, would create new millions of dollars of feminist pork. I-VAWA's stated mission is to carry out a campaign of policy advocacy and education, consulting with dozens of U.S organizations, grassroots organizing, and working with strategic media partners (i.e., getting the media to do their propagandizing).
You can bet that a primary purpose of I-VAWA money will be to lobby the U.S. Senate for ratification of CEDAW so that its UN monitoring committee can force U.S. compliance with feminist goals. That agenda includes everything from requiring unlimited abortion rights to rewriting our school textbooks to eliminate all so-called "stereotypes" and gender-specific references.
Our Senators are taunted with the assertion that the United States should be embarrassed because 185 countries have ratified CEDAW, while we have not. I'm glad the Senate so far has had the good sense to reject a treaty that fraudulently makes naive people believe it will improve the lot of American women.
Pakistan has ratified CEDAW. That's the country where a tribal council ordered a young woman gang-raped to avenge her brother's crime of being seen with an unchaperoned woman from another tribe. Gang rape is common in Pakistan.
Nigeria has ratified CEDAW. That's a country where women are stoned to death for the crime of adultery. Islamic law, called Shariah, calls for death to women who commit adultery, but a lesser punishment for adulterous men.
Saudi Arabia has ratified CEDAW. That's the country where 14 girls died inside a Mecca school that went up in flames. Religious police kept rescuers from entering the building because some of the girls were not wearing their head coverings.
Colombia has ratified CEDAW. That's a country where thousands of women a year are sold into sex slavery. Similar outrages take place in India, Nepal and Thailand, which have also ratified CEDAW.
All these countries are eligible to sit on CEDAW's monitoring committee of 23 "experts" who monitor "progress" and order compliance. All UN projects to improve the lot of women follow the feminist model: break up the family, force women into the workforce, and send kids to daycare.
I-VAWA is based on the lie that violence against women is the same problem in all countries. Many non-Western countries have social norms that justify abuse (such as genital mutilation, forced marriage, and polygamy), and "international standards" would vastly diminish the rights and benefits American women now enjoy.
American women are the most privileged class of people on the face of the earth. That's because we are the beneficiaries of the Judeo-Christian civilization, including the requirement in the Ten Commandments to honor mothers and the Christian religion that honors the Virgin Mary and respects women.
Mark Steyn presents a good idea in his new book called "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It." Since the majority of women in European battered women's shelters are Muslim, he suggests that a serious push for women's rights in the Islamic world could destabilize Islamic regimes such as Iran.
One Brave Judge Resists Feminist Agenda
A New Jersey judge recently confronted an issue that courts have been avoiding for years: are restraining orders constitutional? Accused criminals have "due process" and many other constitutional rights, but the feminists have persuaded many judges to issue orders that restrain actions of non-criminals and punish them based on flimsy, unproved accusations.
These restraining orders are issued without the due process required for criminal prosecutions, yet they carry the threat of a prison sentence for anyone who violates them.
Mr. and Mrs. Crespo were divorced and rearing their children in the same household when they had a fight, and Mrs. Crespo asked for a restraining order. Mr. Crespo was not charged with any crime, but the judge issued the restraining order, which banned him from his own house and thereby separated him from his kids.
Mr. Crespo made several good arguments that the New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence Act is unconstitutional. Judge Francis B. Schultz rejected most of those arguments, but he cited a long line of cases holding that "clear and convincing evidence" is required in order to take away fundamental rights (such as a parent's right over the care and custody of his children).
The feminists are in an uproar about Judge Schultz's decision and would like the New Jersey Supreme Court to reverse it. The feminists want courts to uphold a woman's right to kick a man out of his home based on a woman's unverified accusations.
Family courts are notorious for issuing restraining orders based on one woman's unsupported request. The New Jersey Law Journal reported that an instructor taught judges to be merciless to husbands and fathers, saying, "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him 'See ya' around.' "
People have a better chance to prove their innocence in traffic court than when subjected to a restraining order. Too often, the order serves no legitimate purpose, but is just an easy way for one spouse to get revenge or the upper hand in a divorce or child custody dispute.
Once a restraining order is issued, it becomes nearly impossible for a father to retain custody or even get to see his own children. That is the result even though the alleged domestic violence (which doesn't have to be physical or proven) did not involve the children at all.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear another case, U.S. v. Hayes, to decide whether an old misdemeanor domestic violence conviction can bar a man from ever owning a gun. Everyone agrees that convicted felons should not have guns, but misdemeanors are minor offenses that usually carry no jail time.
Under feminist pressure, most courts have interpreted federal law broadly to deprive millions of men of their gun rights. However, in the Hayes case, a 2-1 majority on the Fourth Circuit had the courage to stand up to the feminists and rule that Hayes had no fair warning that prosecutors would stretch the definition of domestic violence to include his minor offense.
Randy Edward Hayes had a dispute with his wife in 1994, pled guilty to misdemeanor battery, and served one year of probation. Ten years later, he was prosecuted for having a Winchester rifle in his West Virginia home.
Why are men with clean histories except for one domestic dispute punished like hardened criminals who mug strangers on the street? The answer is that the feminist agenda calls for domestic-violence laws to punish husbands and fathers above and beyond what can be proven in court under due-process procedures.
When Senator Dianne Feinstein voted for the federal law prohibiting a man from owning a gun if he has a domestic violence conviction, she stated, "It is an unfortunate fact that many domestic violence offenders are never convicted of a felony. Outdated or ineffective laws often treat domestic violence as a lesser offense.... Plea bargains often result in misdemeanor convictions for what are really felony crimes."
In other words, Senator Feinstein wants to pretend a man is a felon even if he is not. That's the feminist anti-male agenda.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this year in District of Columbia v. Heller that we all have a fundamental constitutional right to own and use a gun. We will soon see how serious the Court is in defending our Second Amendment right.
It's time to restore basic constitutional rights to husbands and fathers by repudiating the feminist agenda that considers men guilty unless proven innocent.
These restraining orders are issued without the due process required for criminal prosecutions, yet they carry the threat of a prison sentence for anyone who violates them.
Mr. and Mrs. Crespo were divorced and rearing their children in the same household when they had a fight, and Mrs. Crespo asked for a restraining order. Mr. Crespo was not charged with any crime, but the judge issued the restraining order, which banned him from his own house and thereby separated him from his kids.
Mr. Crespo made several good arguments that the New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence Act is unconstitutional. Judge Francis B. Schultz rejected most of those arguments, but he cited a long line of cases holding that "clear and convincing evidence" is required in order to take away fundamental rights (such as a parent's right over the care and custody of his children).
The feminists are in an uproar about Judge Schultz's decision and would like the New Jersey Supreme Court to reverse it. The feminists want courts to uphold a woman's right to kick a man out of his home based on a woman's unverified accusations.
Family courts are notorious for issuing restraining orders based on one woman's unsupported request. The New Jersey Law Journal reported that an instructor taught judges to be merciless to husbands and fathers, saying, "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him 'See ya' around.' "
People have a better chance to prove their innocence in traffic court than when subjected to a restraining order. Too often, the order serves no legitimate purpose, but is just an easy way for one spouse to get revenge or the upper hand in a divorce or child custody dispute.
Once a restraining order is issued, it becomes nearly impossible for a father to retain custody or even get to see his own children. That is the result even though the alleged domestic violence (which doesn't have to be physical or proven) did not involve the children at all.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear another case, U.S. v. Hayes, to decide whether an old misdemeanor domestic violence conviction can bar a man from ever owning a gun. Everyone agrees that convicted felons should not have guns, but misdemeanors are minor offenses that usually carry no jail time.
Under feminist pressure, most courts have interpreted federal law broadly to deprive millions of men of their gun rights. However, in the Hayes case, a 2-1 majority on the Fourth Circuit had the courage to stand up to the feminists and rule that Hayes had no fair warning that prosecutors would stretch the definition of domestic violence to include his minor offense.
Randy Edward Hayes had a dispute with his wife in 1994, pled guilty to misdemeanor battery, and served one year of probation. Ten years later, he was prosecuted for having a Winchester rifle in his West Virginia home.
Why are men with clean histories except for one domestic dispute punished like hardened criminals who mug strangers on the street? The answer is that the feminist agenda calls for domestic-violence laws to punish husbands and fathers above and beyond what can be proven in court under due-process procedures.
When Senator Dianne Feinstein voted for the federal law prohibiting a man from owning a gun if he has a domestic violence conviction, she stated, "It is an unfortunate fact that many domestic violence offenders are never convicted of a felony. Outdated or ineffective laws often treat domestic violence as a lesser offense.... Plea bargains often result in misdemeanor convictions for what are really felony crimes."
In other words, Senator Feinstein wants to pretend a man is a felon even if he is not. That's the feminist anti-male agenda.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this year in District of Columbia v. Heller that we all have a fundamental constitutional right to own and use a gun. We will soon see how serious the Court is in defending our Second Amendment right.
It's time to restore basic constitutional rights to husbands and fathers by repudiating the feminist agenda that considers men guilty unless proven innocent.
The Feminist Left Goes Global on Our Money
Poor use of tax payer funding would be a nice way to put it, this is almost insane how US tax money is being spend while the economy is sinking. I guess Obama never learns, that is why on November 2, 2010 Democrats lost so many of there seats in the house of Representatives and in Senate, unfortunately not enough. Time for the Obama Administration to get there priorities correct and stop unnecessary funding Feminazi Hate perpetrators.
If the Democrats don't get it, they sure will come 2012.
If the Democrats don't get it, they sure will come 2012.
Based in the State Department, her statutory title will be "Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues." Her task will be to assure a "gender integration" perspective in all State Department policies and programs.
The breath-taking reach of her powers is openly stated in the bill's first section: "The Ambassador shall coordinate and advise, and where relevant lead — (1) State Department activities and policies, including as they affect programs and funding relating to prevention and response, including gender integration and women's development internationally as relates to prevention and response."
And if that's not enough, the feminist Ambassador will also be responsible for the "allocation of State Department resources" to carry out the mischief.
Reinforcing her ukases will be a "Women's Development Advisor" with a desk in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This is the same federal agency that sent millions to a radical feminist group in India called Women Power Connect, which used U.S. taxpayers' money to lobby for a 33 percent female quota in the Indian Parliament.
The vehicle for this latest pandering to the feminist left is the International Violence Against Women Act called I-VAWA (S.2982 and H.R.4594). The lead sponsors are Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer.
The bill broadly defines violence against women to include non-violent "psychological harm," "intimidation at work," and "psychological violence perpetrated or condoned by the government of the country in which the victim is a resident." Naturally, lots of taxpayers' money will be needed for so awesome a task, so the bill authorizes $1 billion over five years.
The global reach of this new Czar's activities opens the door for Obama's feminist constituency to dictate to other countries. The bill calls for a "comprehensive, five-year international strategy to prevent and respond to violence against women and girls internationally" and to set up "gender-integrated, comprehensive, and holistic" plans in 20 countries.
This new feminist gestapo will support the "development and enforcement of civil and criminal legal and judicial sanctions, protections, trainings, and capacity." And there's more: the bill authorizes U.S. money to be spent to develop "programs affecting social norms, community attitudes, and male and female participation in violence and response to victims."
The feminist movement in the United States has never been only about changing laws alleged to be discriminatory. Feminists yearn to dictate norms and attitudes, too.
I-VAWA will provide "legal services for women" but not for men. According to the practice of our domestic Violence Against Women Act, which has been functioning in the United States since 1994, "legal services" are not just legal defense but also aggressive legal troublemaking such as getting a restraining order to kick the husband out of the house.
One important section of I-VAWA assures that the feminist left controls the flow of taxpayers' money. Section 112 provides for grants to "Women's Nongovernmental Organizations and Community-Based Organizations."
It's a no-brainer to predict what kinds of "organizations" will be eligible for those grants. You can be sure that non-feminist organizations will not be on any approved list of grantees.
I-VAWA requires the State Department to "prepare a public report on best practices for preventing and addressing violence against women and girls internationally." The feminist left has always been skillful and experienced in preventing grant money ever to go to any group or individual who might unearth scientific or statistical evidence contrary to feminist ideology.
Feminist orthodoxy teaches that there are no innate differences between males and females with one exception. Men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims.
Does anyone dare to think that the State Department report will call for stopping the violence against women committed by mandatory abortions to carry out a government's one-child policy? Or report on sex-selective abortions to kill unborn girl babies because parents prefer a boy baby?
If our State Department wants to help women in other countries, how about reporting to the American people about the atrocities against women committed by Muslim countries that use sharia law. That includes forced marriages, child marriages, so-called "honor" murders, polygamy, and death by stoning as punishment for women who commit adultery.
The State Department could do something very useful by refusing to grant visas or immigrant status to anyone who supports Sharia punishments or genital mutilation of women. That would be an inexpensive way to stop a lot of violence against women.
Time to Defund Feminist Pork — the Hate-Men Law
 | |
If Congress is looking for a way to return to principles of limited government and reduced federal spending, or to help finance the expenses of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita without raising taxes, a good place to start would be to reject the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) sponsored by Senator Joe Biden (D-DE). It's a political mystery why Republicans continue to put a billion dollars a year of taxpayers' money into the hands of radical feminists who use it to preach their anti-marriage and anti-male ideology, to promote divorce, to corrupt the family court system, and to engage in anti-family political advocacy. Accountability is supposed to be the watchword of the Bush Administration, but there's been no accountability or oversight for VAWA's ten years of spending many billions of dollars. There is no evidence that VAWA has benefited anyone except the radical feminists on its payroll. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on VAWA in mid-July, but no critic of VAWA was permitted to speak. VAWA was first passed in 1994 after the feminists floated such bogus statistics as "a woman is beaten every 15 seconds" and "80% of fathers who seek custody of their children fit the profile of a batterer." Remember the Super Bowl Hoax, the ridiculous claim that "the biggest day of the year for violence against women" is Super Bowl Sunday (an assertion conclusively refuted by the scholarly research of Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers)? VAWA was passed when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and was signed by Bill Clinton in 1994. VAWA is the biggest legislative achievement of NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund (which has since changed its name to Legal Momentum). This tax-exempt organization brags on its website that it "was central to the crafting and passage of VAWA 1994 and [its first reauthorization in] 2000 [and] we are currently hard at work to secure reauthorization and full funding for VAWA 2005." VAWA assumes fluid definitions of domestic violence that blur the difference between violent action and run-of-the-mill marital tiffs and arguments. Definitions of abuse can even include minor insults and irritations that occur in most marriages or relationships. A woman seeking help from a VAWA-funded center is not offered any options except to leave her husband, divorce him, accuse him of being a criminal, and have her sons targeted as suspects in future crimes. VAWA ideology rejects joint counseling, reconciliation, and saving marriages. VAWA refuses to recognize that alcohol and illegal drugs are a cause of domestic violence, a peculiar assumption contrary to all human experience. Numerous studies demonstrate a high correlation between domestic violence and alcohol or drug abuse. VAWA forces Soviet-style psychological re-education on men and teenage boys. The accused men are not given treatment for real problems, but are assigned to classes where feminists teach shame and guilt because of a vast male conspiracy to subjugate women. VAWA funds the re-education of judges and law enforcement personnel to teach them feminist stereotypes about male abusers and female victims, how to game the system to empower women, and how to ride roughshod over the constitutional rights of men. VAWA encourages women to make false allegations and then petition for full child custody and a denial of fathers' rights to see their own children. VAWA promotes the unrestrained use of restraining orders, which family courts issue on the woman's say-so. VAWA-funded centers engage in political advocacy for feminist legislation such as the "must-arrest" laws even if there is no sign of violence and even if the woman doesn't want the man arrested, and the "no drop" laws which mean the government must prosecute the man even if the woman doesn't want him prosecuted. It's time to stop VAWA from spending any more taxpayers' money to promote family dissolution and fatherless children. VAWA Based on Radical Feminist Ideology The groundwork for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was laid by Gloria Steinem's nonsense, such as "The patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself" and Andrea Dworkin's tirades of hate such as, "Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." During the Clinton Administration, the feminists parlayed their hysteria that domestic violence is a national epidemic into the 1994 passage of the Violence Against Women Act. It quickly became a gigantic gravy train of taxpayers' money - known as feminist pork — that provided jobs for radical feminists and empowered them to pursue their goals at our expense. We have always had laws against assault and battery in all 50 states, but that doesn't satisfy the feminists. Feminist ideology teaches that domestic violence threatens every woman because of our alleged patriarchal society and is of epidemic proportions that demand an expensive federal remedy. Feminist ideology teaches that domestic violence is not a matter of the misbehavior of some men who may be bad individuals or drunks or psychologically troubled, but that all men share the blame for domestic violence because they benefit from a system that empowers men and keeps women subservient. Feminists staged public tantrums this year against the president of Harvard University because he dared to discuss math-aptitude differences between men and women. But VAWA is based on the unscientific notion that all men are potentially if not actually abusive, and that all women are victims or in danger of becoming victims. Since 1994, VAWA has dished out massive grant money that validated a feminist network of organizations called the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The following passage, taken from the website of the Arizona chapter, is typical of VAWA ideology: "Using Male Privilege. As long as we as a culture accept the principle and privilege of male dominance, men will continue to be abusive. As long as we as a culture accept and tolerate violence against women, men will continue to be abusive. . . . All men benefit from the violence of batterers. There is no man who has not enjoyed the male privilege resulting from male domination reinforced by the use of physical violence. . . . All women suffer as a consequence of men's violence. Battering by individual men keeps all women in line. While not every woman has experienced violence, there is no woman in this society who has not feared it, restricting her activities and her freedom to avoid it. Women are always watchful knowing that they may be the arbitrary victims of male violence." Your tax dollars paid for a 1993 National Woman Abuse Prevention Project pamphlet which stated that "society has accepted the use of violence by men to control women's behavior." Not satisfied with getting a billion dollars a year from the U.S. Treasury, 67 feminist and liberal organizations supported a lawsuit to try to get private allegations of domestic abuse heard in federal courts so they could collect civil damages against men and institutions with deep pockets. Fortunately, the Supreme Court, in Brzonkala v. Morrison (2000), declared unconstitutional VAWA's section that might have permitted that additional mischief. However, VAWA's billions of dollars continue to finance the domestic-violence industry, and there is a deafening silence from conservatives who pretend to be guardians against federal takeovers of problems that are none of the federal government's business. Local crimes and marital disputes should not be subjects of federal law or spending. Shame on Members of Congress who lack the courage to stand up to feminist outrages. Feminists have always made divorce a major component of women's liberation and political freedom and they brag about their role in passing the unilateral divorce laws that swept the country during the 1970s. When I was debating the proposed Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s, feminists were already propagating the lie that marriage is an inherently abusive institution that makes wives second-class citizens. Feminist dominance in the universities assures that college textbooks portray marriage as bleak and dreary for women. Assigned readings are preoccupied with domestic violence, battering, abuse, marital rape, and divorce. For three decades, feminists have toyed with the question that Maureen Dowd chose as the title of her new book, Are Men Necessary? That's just the latest version of Gloria Steinem's famous line, "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." Currently, the media are publicizing a ridiculous book called Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men by Peggy Drexler. The famous 1965 Daniel Patrick Moynihan report, The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, warned that the rise in single-mother families was not a harmless lifestyle choice, but was unraveling "the basic socializing unit" and causing high rates of delinquency, joblessness, school failure and male alienation. Moynihan was bitterly attacked for speaking what is now universally recognized as the awful truth. Kay S. Hymowitz, in the Manhattan Institute's August City Journal writes that Moynihan's critics romanticized female-headed families as a good thing. She described how the feminists, who were fixated on notions of patriarchal oppression, claimed that criticism of mother-headed households was really an effort to deny women their independence, their sexuality, or both. VAWA gives the radical feminists a billion dollars a year to pursue their anti-marriage, pro-divorce anti-male activism and to expand mother-headed households even further into our society. What Is Domestic Violence? Most people think of domestic violence as the sad or tragic cases of men beating up women. Assault and battery are obviously crimes that should be prosecuted and punished. But domestic violence doesn't just mean criminal conduct. The feminists have expanded the definition of domestic violence to include an endless variety of perfectly legal actions that are made punishable because of who commits them. VAWA's gender-specific title is pejorative and sex-discriminatory: the Violence Against Women Act. VAWA means violence by men against women. VAWA does not include violence by women against women. VAWA's funds are routinely denied to male victims of domestic violence. For example, the Texas VAWA grant application makes its sexist goal specific: "Grant funds may not be used for the following: Services for programs that focus on children and/or men." Professor Martin Fiebert of California State University at Long Beach compiled a bibliography of 170 scholarly investigations, 134 empirical studies and 36 analyses which demonstrate that women are almost as physically abusive toward their partners as men. Studies by the leading domestic violence researchers found that half of all couple violence is mutual, and when only one partner is physically abusive, it is as likely to be initiated by the woman as the man. The term domestic violence has morphed into domestic abuse, a far broader term. Domestic abuse doesn't have to be violent — it doesn't even have to be physical. The feminists' mantra is, "You don't have to be beaten to be abused." A 1979 book called The Battered Woman by Lenore Walker is credited with establishing feminist theory on domestic violence and in originating what is called the "Battered Woman Syndrome." This book is all hearsay without credible statistical data. She admitted that her "research" and generalizations were based on "a self-volunteered sample" of women who contacted her after hearing her speeches or interviews. Walker mentions the large study of domestic violence undertaken by the National Institute of Mental Health-financed survey of Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz, but fails to tell her readers that its final conclusion is that women initiate violence in intimate relationships at least as often as men do. Nevertheless, Walker's unscientific book had a big impact in spreading the propaganda that the "battered" are always women, that "batterers" are always men, that "battering" is not necessarily a violent or even a physical act. She admitted that "Most of the women in this project describe incidents involving psychological humiliation and verbal harassment as their worst battering experiences, whether or not they had been physically abused." While psychological abuses can be hurtful, they are completely subjective, and it is absurd to pretend that verbal abuse is done only by men against women and not vice versa. As an example of "battering," Walker defended the woman who admitted she "began to assault Paul physically, before he assaulted her," but "Paul had been battering her by ignoring her and by working late, in order to move up the corporate ladder." So, trying to do a better job of supporting his family was construed as domestic abuse. Like many feminists, Walker is not trying to improve marriage but rather to destroy it. She urged that "psychotherapists must encourage breaking the family apart." Domestic violence has become whatever the woman wants to allege, with or without evidence. Examples of claims of domestic abuse include: name-calling, constant criticizing, insulting, belittling the victim, blaming the victim for everything, ignoring or ridiculing the victim's needs, jealousy and possessiveness, insults, put-downs, gestures, facial expressions, looking in a certain way, body postures, and controlling the money. A Justice Department-funded document published by the National Victim Assistance Academy stated a widely accepted definition of "violence" that includes such non-criminal acts as "degradation and humiliation" and "name-calling and constant criticizing." The acts need not be illegal, physical, violent, or threatening. The domestic violence checklist typically provided by family courts to women seeking divorce and/or sole child custody asks them "if the other parent has ever done or threatened to do any of the following": "blaming all problems on you," "following you," "embarrassing, putting you down," "interrupting your eating or sleeping." Such actions are not illegal or criminal; no one has a right not to be insulted. But in the weird world of the domestic-violence industry, acts that are not criminal between strangers become crimes between members of a household, and such actions can be punished by depriving a man of his father's rights, putting him under a restraining order, and even jailing him. Family courts mete out punishment based on gender and relationships rather than on acts. Creating a special category of domestic-violence offenses is very much like legislating against hate crimes. Both create a new level of crimes for which punishment is based on who you are rather than what acts you commit, and the "who" in the view of VAWA and the domestic-violence lobby is always the husband and father. VAWA: Feminist Weapon Against Men When a woman appeals to a VAWA-funded shelter, she is immediately told she must file for divorce and accuse her husband/boy friend of domestic violence so that a restraining order can be issued against him. That would be rational if we were talking about life-or-limb endangerment. But it makes no sense if abuse involves merely run-of-the-mill disagreements for which mediation and reconciliation could be better for all, especially the children. No VAWA programs teach women how to deal with family disputes without resorting to divorce. No VAWA programs promote intact families or better male-female relationships. VAWA has no provision for addressing problems within the context of marriage. What VAWA does is to promote divorce and provide women with weapons, such as the restraining order and free legal assistance, to get sole custody of their children. The Illinois Bar Journal (June 2005) explained how women use court-issued restraining orders as a tool for the mother to get sole child custody and to bar the father from visitation. In big type, the magazine proclaimed: "Orders of protection are designed to prevent domestic violence, but they can also become part of the gamesmanship of divorce." The "game" is that mothers can assert falsehoods or trivial complaints against the father, and get a restraining order based on the presumption that men are abusers of women. The Final Report of the Child Custody and Visitation Focus Group of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges admitted that "usually judges are not required to make a finding of domestic violence in civil protection order cases." In other words, judges saddle fathers with restraining orders on the wife's say-so without investigation as to whether her claim is true or false, and without accountability if it is false. If a hearing is held, the woman merely needs to prove her claim by a "preponderance of the evidence." That means she doesn't have to prove the abuse happened, only that it is more likely than not that it happened. Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association, admitted in 1993: "Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply . . . In many [divorce] cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage." The consequences of the issuance of restraining orders are profound: the mother gets a sole-custody order, and the father can be forbidden all contact with his children, excluded from the family residence, and have his assets and future income put under control of the family court. A vast array of legal behavior is suddenly criminalized with harsh penalties. The restraining order frequently precludes the father from possessing a firearm for any purpose, which means he loses his job if he is in the service or law enforcement, or working for a company with so-called zero tolerance policies. Nevertheless, one study that evaluated the effectiveness of restraining orders concluded that "they were ineffective in stopping physical violence" and another stated that "having a permanent order did not appear to deter most types of abuse." Billions of dollars have gushed forth from VAWA to the states to finance private victim-advocacy organizations, private domestic-violence coalitions, and the indoctrination of judges, prosecutors and police in feminist ideology. This tax-funded network is staffed by radical feminists who teach the presumption of male and father guilt. VAWA gives $75 million annually in grants to encourage arrest and enforcement of protection orders, and $55 million annually to provide free legal assistance to victims (but not to the accused men). Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH) said during the VAWA debate, "Since 1995, states have passed more than 85% laws to combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking." Congress should investigate how many of these laws were the result of lobbying by VAWA employees using taxpayers' money. VAWA employees are aggressive advocates of the "must arrest" laws (that require the police to arrest one person [you can guess which one] despite the trivial nature of the alleged abuse and despite the woman's plea that she doesn't want the man arrested), and the "no drop" laws (that require prosecution even though reconciliation has taken place). VAWA employees also lobby against the shared-custody laws that respect father's rights. Studies show these "must arrest" and "no drop" laws don't stop domestic violence, but flood the courts with trivial cases (about pushing, hair-pulling, etc.) alongside of real cases of battering that deserve prosecution. Congress should not be spending taxpayers' money to deal with marital disputes, and courts should not deprive children of their fathers on the feminists' presumption that fathers are dangerous. The current VAWA reauthorization bill not only continues an extraordinary level of federal funding without accountability, but it makes sure that future funding can go only to the same feminist organizations that have been getting VAWA funds in the past. An estimated 40% of our nation's children are now living in homes without their own father. Most social problems are caused by kids who grow up in homes without their own fathers: drug abuse, illicit sexual activity, unwed pregnancies, youth suicide, high school dropouts, runaways, and crime. Where have all the fathers gone? Some men are irresponsible slobs, but no evidence exists that nearly half of American children were voluntarily abandoned by their own fathers; there must be other explanations. Congress should conduct an investigation to find out how much of this fatherlessness is the result of bad government policies and putting taxpayers' money in the hands of a small radical group that is biased against marriage and fathers. Congress should terminate funding for the Violence Against Women Act - a hate-men law that throws husbands and fathers out of their homes and deprives them of their children after a very ordinary squabble masquerading as domestic violence. VAWA is not about stopping domestic violence - it is about empowering radical feminists, using taxpayers' money, to change our culture. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)