Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
EJF newsletter - Ottawa's notorious Bill 117 comes to Colorado
Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2007-03-24 03:20
From the most recent newsletter from The Equal Justice Foundation:
Background
In the fall of 2000 legislators in Ottawa, Canada, introduced Bill 117 that provided that any woman could have a man restrained, imprisoned, and his property transferred to her all in the same day without any pretense of due process. Writing for the Ottawa Citizen, columnist Dave Brown noted:
"The new legislation is based on the premise women in abusive relationships can't escape because they are economically dependent. The intent is to correct this by making it possible to immediately transfer all property to her.
Written into the scheme are ex parte applications. The alleged abuser doesn't have to be present when the order seizing his property is made. Application for an Intervention Order can be made by anyone in a one-to-one relationship, including dating.
...It will take precedence over any acquittal, dismissal or withdrawal of a criminal charge, or any order under any statute, including the Divorce Act.
Transference of property will include
leased property, even if she is only a date, and is binding on the landlord. If rent is in arrears, the landlord must collect from him. She will have no liability."
While I understand Bill 117 became law it has rarely, if ever, been enforced as the inherent violations of English law are so blatant that even today's courts would be likely to quickly void it. However, that does not mean the idea and process have faded away.
In Your Lucky Night, written in 2002, I put forth an example of how, under Colorado law, a woman can pick up a man in a bar and end up with all his property and possessions by obtaining an ex parte restraining order claiming abuse or domestic violence.
Since writing that essay many men have contacted the Equal Justice Foundation to tell us how something very similar was done to them. And EJF member Elizabeth has described how an illegal alien has done this to her father and is gaining U.S. citizenship in the process under VAWA, another all-too-common fraud.
Male victims of this fraud have naturally reacted to this outrage by not paying the rent, cutting off the utilities and phone, closing joint accounts and credit cards, canceling insurance, stopping car payments, etc. We have also advised a number of men that their best, and probably only option, was to let the bank foreclose on their house. And many women have found the promises of the DV and divorce industry were a financial and personal disaster for them and the children.
Apparently the number of men unwilling to pay some doxy's rent, or the mortgage on the house where his wife's new boy toy now lives because of false allegations of abuse has become unacceptably large and redfems have demanded draconian legislation to "correct" the situation.
Colorado's Democratic Peoples Soviet to the rescue
State senator John Morse* (D-El Paso County; e-mail:john.morse.senate-at-state.co.us) has been happy to oblige by introducing SB07-136 (.pdf file), which provides that Colorado courts can now require men to pay for:
"...rent and mortgage payments, telephone and utility services, child care costs, temporary possession of personal property, and insurance,"
when issuing an ex parte restraining order. Note also that there is no requirement that "child care costs" be limited to the man's biological children.
Currently the Colorado Senate has passed this bill unanimously and it is undergoing final passage by the House.
Upon signature by the governor any woman who is angry at her boyfriend, a "working girl" on South Nevada near Fort Carson in Colorado Springs, or a wife having an affair can claim they are "Victims of domestic violence...unable to access resources to seek lasting safety options;"
and have their living expenses guaranteed by filing an ex parte restraining order.
Of course, under Morse's scheme, a man who fails to pay the rent or mortgage, etc., will go to jail for violating the restraining order, no doubt losing his job and income in the process. By casting a man into the street with an ex parte restraining order, and then jailing him, the entire family is now left without support. While that suits the interests of the DV industry and the welfare bureaucracy, it is destroying our society. SB07-136 also claims that "Thirty-three states recognize existing legal obligations for support, payment, or ownership of personal or real property in order to protect victims in civil protection orders." However, Ottawa, Canada, is the only other case I've seen of such complete disregard of civil rights and apparently deliberate attempt to destroy families and marriage.
Feeding the DV and divorce
industry
It is also of interest to note that the best estimate of actual domestic violence is from the National Crime Victim Surveys (NCVS) that suggests only 1 in 250 (0.04%) of households a year suffer what citizen's regard as a criminal DV incident. From that estimate there would be fewer than 8,000 DV incidents in Colorado a year. However, for fiscal year 2006 Colorado courts report 7,237 restraining orders were issued for domestic abuse (.pdf file) and
14,123 misdemeanor cases of domestic
violence (.pdf file), wherein a restraining order is mandatory, for a total of at least 21,360 restraining orders (felony cases are not included). On the face of it there appear to be 2.5 times more DV court cases than citizens are reporting to the statisticians at NCVS. Clearly there is reason to suspect domestic violence laws are being grossly abused.
It cannot be claimed that false allegations by women in order to obtain a restraining order are uncommon or new. The June 11, 1998, edition of Denver's Westword documented a case of two sisters making a game of charging men with DV. The EJF has heard numerous cases of women getting a restraining order and giving their boyfriend's address as their residence, then selling off all his possessions. A woman in Colorado Springs was caught after her third round of that game. Other women have probably been even more successful. And, when caught, virtually nothing is done to these women.
Additionally, fewer than 8,000 cases of domestic violence a year in a state with a population of 4.7 million does not represent an epidemic and hardly mandates draconian legislation directing the ex parte seizure of men's property in direct violation of their civil rights.
The basis for such tyrannical legislation becomes clearer when we note there were 24,750 divorce (dissolution of marriage) petitions (.pdf file) filed during 2006 in Colorado, a number rather close to the 21,360 restraining orders issued. And what better way to encourage the destruction of marriages, families, and relationships than by guaranteeing a woman the house, the car, the kids, the bank account, and anything else she wants if she files a restraining order or calls 911 without giving a man the chance to defend himself.
The similarity of such measures as SB07-136 to the Russian Effort To Abolish Marriage after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution seems so
blatantly obvious that the Colorado soviet must be either brain dead or deliberately enacting the redfem ideology into law.
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.
---------------------------
*The sponsor of this abomination,
John Morse is a freshman state senator without previous experience, who has chosen to dive off the deep end without checking to see if the pool is full of cow manure.
Morse lists his occupation as "executive" but a more traditional title for what he is
doing would be commissar.
- Log in to post comments
Comments
You Get What You Deserve
If the men of Colorado put up with and accept this s**t then they like Canadian men deserve what happens to them. If they don't turn off the boob tube sports channel and get off their collective duffs and start exercising their political power then they need to suffer the consequences like the worms they are.
Isn't it odd that we are in Iraq and other places overseas supposedly defending freedom from tyranny when this type of tyrannical legislation is tolerated here? This is insane!
Well said
Well said Luek and to the point. I couldn't agree more.
One of the biggest frustrations I experience in all of my men's issues activism is the complete lack of motivation, coming from the vast majority of men, to do something about men's issues.
If I had a nickel for every guy I've heard complain, but was to too apathetic to get off his butt, we could both go out and have a big steak dinner at a fancy restaurant.
This proposed legislation in Colorada is absolutely STALINIST!
Johnny Appleseed
Thanks MR.
But don't get frustrated. I believe we are like the folk character Johnny Appleseed who roamed the countryside sowing apple seeds but would not live long enough to see the results of his labor germinate. We are sowing the seeds that will eventually destroy the radfem mentality and resulting tyranny that presently plagues the Western world. We may or may not see the results of our efforts but the sowing must be done and is being done. And that is hope for a better future.
Seeds Don't Germinate in Toxic Soil
I try to be optimistic about prospects for rolling back the tyranny of radical feminism, but every time I read a story like this one from Colorado, I have to put on my clinical observer's hat and see clearly that the evidence suggests otherwise:
- the Biden amendment to expand VAWA funding by $100 million passed UNANIMOUSLY yesterday. No elected representative voted against it.
- All front-runner candidates for the next Presidential election are on record as supporting VAWA and legislative feminism in general. (Allegiance to feminism is a bi-partisan uniter, not a divider ... )
- Despite claims by some ostensible MRA organizations of legislative victories, there appears to be no corroborating evidence of feminist laws and draconian DV legal & policing practices being reformed or repealed.
Recall that at last year's Senate Judicial Committee hearings on the reauthorization of VAWA, all oppositional expert testimony was effectively prevented by Joe Biden.
I continue to be intrigued by how the general population of the Land of the Free fails to connect-the-dots between a 50% divorce rate, a 37% babies-born-to a-single-mother rate,a skyrocketing home foreclosure rate, growing families in poverty rate...
and the obvious toxic success of feminism.
This, after all, is an ideology that views the family as an oppressive evil patriarchal institution. There is no such thing as an acceptible definition of a "good" family if it is founded on a heterosexual couple... married or not!
You may plant all the johnnyMRAppleseeds you want; but they won't grow in this feminazi garden where $1 billion per year VAWA money is dedicated to "weeding out" what men wish to plant and cultivate.
Beware
I have a permanent restraining order against me from my ex-wife. I have never been violent with her. I have not so much as hinted that I would become violent with her. Yet, without any proof, which doesn't exist anyway, the courts granted a permenant restraining order.
There was no burden of proof. Absolutely none! I hope to see my 8 year old daughter someday, maybe when she is grown up.
I have been divorced for 2 years now, and I wouldn't so much as even date one of these bitches. I don't allow women into my home.
Regarding this Canadian legislation, It's probably coming to your state soon. Women really don't have any burden in the eyes of the law to prove anything now. I know this from personal experience! With this legislation, will a woman really need to prove that she is dating, or in any kind of a relationship with you, in order to take your property? Probably not. If you have anything of value, and a woman wants it, even though you have no relationship whatsoever, its hers!
Beware!
What are you talking about?
Women don't lie, and there certainly is no such thing as an evil woman who would destroy another human being for some material thing that she wants... I am certain that's never happened... Women only REACT to things that are done to them, they never act out of evil in their own hearts against others. Women are nurturing and loving you know. They care about everyone else and not about themselves and are giving and kind. They are all saints. The Dali Lama has nothing on the average women.
Or at least that's the way society views it anyway. Isn't it great to be a man in this age of post feminist Utopian equality?
Sorry, just feeling sarcastic and cynical today.
Second Amendment Solution?
Hey, if you are going to jail one way or the other and probably still have your property seized by the rad fem social Marxist state then you might as well go down in a blaze of glory rather than get stepped on like a worm.
Return of the Repressed?
Endangeredspecies ... "I wouldn't so much as even date one of these bitches. I don't allow women into my home."
Well, thank you sir for pointing out the obvious.
Men today are now right back where we were when we were cave-dwellers, trying desperately to keep the predators out of our family's home turf.
Saber-toothed tigers and other nasty meat-eating feral animals...
Well, men never anticipated that the feral cats they were protecting (pussy-mommy-cats) would eventually become the predators they unknowingly invited into their homes.
It is interesting to live in a society where even interacting with a female is already defined as an invitation to a crime, yes?
Gotta wonder who benefits the most from the federally funded Gender Wars?
What Blinded You?
Endangeredspecies from the info in your post you must not have been married very long and not that long ago. So why did you not believe the crap that is happening to you now would not happen to you? Other men where in the same spot you are in during the time frame you got married. Why did you think you had some type of waiver from the misandric laws that were and of course still are in effect at that time? If you knew in advance what is happening to you now obviously you would never have gotten married. So why did you ignore the dead bodies all around you and get married anyway? Just curious.
foolish, gullable, naive
I don't recall personally knowing anyone that was going through a divorce at the time I got married. And, at the time I wasn't really paying that much attention to divorce statistics. I had no idea what VAWA was until I underwent the shock of having a deputy sheriff serve me with a TRO. That little gift woke me up. I had no clue as to the awesome power a female in the country wields. I had no clue that I really didn't have constitutional rights. Or any rights!
Also, at the time I thought my ex was one of the nicest people I had ever known. Until I experienced it first hand, I never would have beleived that she would tear my throat out like a wild animal. I had known her for a few years before we got married, we were married 6 years. During our sixth year, she went psycho.
That is why I don't date or allow women into my home. It doesn't matter that they seem like the kindest person in the world. It doesn't matter they seem like they wouldn't harm a fly. When the time is right for them, they will tear your throat out, with the blessing of the law. Something like a ticking time bomb, I guess.
If only I knew then what I know now! LOL
AND THIS IS WHY WE NEED MENS STUDIES COURSES
IN ALL HIGH SCHOOLS AND ALL UNIVERSITIES - WITH REQUIRED ATTENDANCE BY EVERY MALE.
I don't recall personally knowing anyone that was going through a divorce at the time I got married. And, at the time I wasn't really paying that much attention to divorce statistics. I had no idea what VAWA was until I underwent the shock of having a deputy sheriff serve me with a TRO.
Most! young men are not taught the dangers of young women....until it is too late!
oregon dad
Cave-dwellers
If I were offered a choice, I would rather fight off a sabre tooth cat instead of my state and federal government, family court judges, and on and on. I doubt male cave-dwellers had to contend with child support, loss of property, restraining orders, angry feminists, loss of children due to angry whims of ex-wives, etc. At least, a sabre tooth cat could be considered an honorable foe. The former I mentioned are not.
As men, have we really advanced since those days?
You are correct in all of your post. And, you are especially right, men had no anticipation.
"While I understand Bill 117
"While I understand Bill 117 became law..."
Someone else who's poorly informed -- though I'm sure he means well.
C117, the so-called "Shout at your spouse, lose the house" legislation was never passed into law. Yes, it was a feminists wet dream. No, it never became law.
Yes, both Canada and the US have grotesquely unfair laws, but I think that generally Canadian men aren't quite so badly off as our American brothers. There's been some support, for example, from the Supreme Court of Canada (even with a couple radical feminists sitting on the bench) for the validity of pre-nuptual agreements -- that they can't be over-ridden just because wifey doesn't like it.
A long way to go for everyone, but every little bit helps. Keep up the fight, brothers. I hope Colorado doesn't end up with the ghastly law that we managed to avoid.
An acquaintance of mine just had the whole hammer dropped on him -- the false accusations, the restraining order, she even lied and said he was involved in "organized crime!" He's a competitive shooter and has had all his firearms seized by the cops. He's, like, a totally peaceful and decent guy. Was totally blindsided.
He's gotten a good lawyer, and it seems the ex's lies and stories are just SO over the top that no one believes her anymore -- even the cops. It's looking like he's going to get his guns back pretty soon, and it's looking good for a counter-suit. He has NO inclination to "make-up" with her, and just wants to get his life back, dump her, and move on.