Human Rights Day: An Indian Fraud

Dec 11, 2010

By Paul Elam
avoiceformen

Note: I recently posted a video  involving men being assaulted by women at a Delhi train station.  The video used here is a different, more expansive one. -PE

December 10^th is officially recognized as Human Rights Day by the United Nations.  Nations from all over the world are encouraged to measure themselves in respect to their contributions to the human rights movement; to assess their progress and learn from their shortcomings.  It’s a day for pundits and politicians to make arguments and take stands, and it will inspire some, as it has in Cuba, to take to the streets in protest of rights still not recognized.

Unfortunately, the day will also be used for disingenuous political grist; for a ruse presented to the world, painting a picture of progress where none exists, or where even slippage from human rights is the actual course of events.

India is now the shameful example of that. It’s commitment to civil rights is now officially confined to photo ops and spurious political rhetoric, painting only the thinnest veneer over the fact that the largest democracy in the world is now the most virulent enabler of segregation enforced with violence, with men as the targets.
First, here is a picture of what India wants the world to see.

Amritsar, India, Dec 10, 2009

It’s so posed it could double as a post card, or the cover to a “We are the World,” album.
But now let’s take a look at a different India; the real India, where forgetting your place as a man and stepping on a train car reserved for women will get you beaten, while police oversee the abuse and encourage it.



There is India’s true stand on human rights.  Only women are regarded as human.
It might be hard to understand why these men, who committed the sin of entering a woman's only train car when the others were full, would stand by and take such abuse without defending themselves.  Sure, the police/thug enforcers are certainly deterrents.  But it is likely possible that there is another reason.
All I had to do to understand was to think of my father.

He was a veteran of two wars, complete with bullet holes, white phosphorus scars and pieces of shrapnel embedded in his back.  He was also a golden gloves boxer. Not someone to be messed with.  But I think he would have taken the slaps (if not the humiliating squats) just like the men in the video.  In his time it was unthinkable for a man like him to hit a woman, even when under attack.

But he was a man when men were honored for what they did. He didn’t grow up and live with forty years of people telling him he was a pig, and that everything he did to protect women was just a cover for oppressing and abusing them.

Now me, however? I am quite certain that I would have cold cocked the first woman that lay a hand on me, and taken down as many attackers as I could, male or female, police or civilian, before I went down, which I am sure would have happened before it was over.

I think that is the effects of feminism and misandry, if the two really are distinguishable.  I don’t feel bound by a code to protect women, sacrifice for them, and certainly not to be their punching bag because they think I got uppity and forgot my place.  I watch this video and only see the disgrace of hired thugs posing as law enforcement, of immoral women gone drunk and stupid with power, counting on the fact that the men still regard them as untouchable.

Keep it up, India.  Eventually your men will lose their reverence, and their fear, and then you can celebrate Human Rights Day at the train station, with blood on the platform.

And I will not fault your men for one drop of it.  Even a dog will come out fighting if you put him in a corner long enough and kick him.

Source:Humans Rights day: An Indian Fraud

Yippee, we’re all abusers now!

Dec 7, 2010

Domestic violence has been plummeting in recent years. In 1976, the toll of men and women killed by their partners registered 2,944 deaths. Now it’s half that number.

But what comes as good news to American families turns out to be a mixed blessing for the domestic violence industry. After all, the Abuse Mavens don’t want to see their generous paychecks trimmed!
So a few years ago someone ginned up this grand scheme: Let’s exponentially broaden the definition of domestic violence.

And sure enough, the 2005 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act featured this open-ended definition: “The term ‘domestic violence’ includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence.” The law’s artful use of the word “includes” sent a clarion signal to lawmakers throughout the country — an expansive range of conduct could now be considered to constitute abuse.

According to a recent report, “Expanding Definitions of Domestic Violence,” 63% of states include emotional distress in their statutory definition of domestic violence. That means any person who claims to be “fearful” — no evidence necessary — is entitled to a protective order and the generous cornucopia of bennies that comes with it.

Do you live in California, Delaware, Michigan, Montana, or Virginia? In these states, the mere feeling of “apprehension” of harm qualifies you as an abuse victim. In New Jersey, if your partner interferes with your “well-being,” that counts, as well.

In Illinois, “interference with personal liberty” — whatever that means — makes you a domestic abuser. And the Delaware statute throws in the catch-all “any other conduct” for good measure.
But domestic violence runs rampant and proto-abusers need to be held accountable — or so the domestic violence industry claims — so why not swell our definitions even more?

Now, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, partner violence also includes “getting annoyed if the victim disagrees” and “withholding information from the victim.” If that doesn’t suffice, “disregarding what the victim wants” also counts as a punishable offense.

That’s right, guys, if your heart-throb thinks she’s an abuse victim, you’d better get her that pedicure she’s been pestering you about — and fast!

Pro-immigration groups have broadened the playing field even more. The N.O.W. Legal Momentum says “possessiveness” is a sure sign of imminent violence. The Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago counts a person who needs to “walk on eggshells” as an abuse victim. ASISTA posits “what tone of voice was used” is incontrovertible proof, as well.

In an article recently published in Social Science and Medicine, the elastic band of abuse is stretched to even more preposterous lengths. According to “Male Reproductive Control of Women who Have Experienced Intimate Partner Violence,” a man who attempts to sway his wife’s reproductive status is guilty of “reproductive control.”

So wise up, guys. If you ever told a woman you didn’t want her to get an abortion or refused to pay for contraception, you are guilty of “reproductive control.” According to the feminist catechism, that’s a mortal sin, which of course constitutes violence against women.

But these definitions have a built-in limitation: They all require the alleged abuser to commit a specific unlawful act. This can make it difficult to prove your case in a court of law. The solution? Balloon the definition even more!

Go to the website of the federal Office of Violence against Women. The OVW informs us domestic violence is a “pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control.”

Maintain power and control?
Ladies, if you nag your husband to mow the lawn, that’s power and control. Men, quit telling your wife to not overdraw the ATM — same thing. If you get into a disagreement over the TV remote control, you guessed it, that’s proof of an obsessive need for power and control. That’s a heinous offense, according to Big Sister.
In the former Soviet Union, criminal laws were crafted to ensnare the daily activities of innocent citizens. As former KGB director Lavrenti Beria famously warned, “Show me the man, and I’ll find you the crime.”
Once possessed of the mission of curbing partner abuse, the domestic violence industry now foreshadows the recrudescence of the horrific memories of a dystopian past.

Source: dailycaller