[an error occurred while processing this directive]
More News About Canada's Bill 117
posted by Scott on Friday January 05, @11:07AM
from the domestic-violence dept.
Domestic Violence Although this is from Dec. 20, I only recently found a web link to this story and want to include it for the sake of thoroughness on the Bill 117 saga. The Ottawa Citizen printed another article on the Bill, also by Dave Brown. In it he mentions, "Reader reaction [to his original article] was the heaviest I've experienced in more than 30 years of column writing. Many refused to believe it. They thought I must have my facts wrong." Unfortunately - and frighteningly - the media seems to be completely ignoring this issue.

<  Making Boys More Like Girls | Boy Facing Two Years For "Butt Slapping" Incident  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Bill 117 (Score:1)
by Scott (scott@mensactivism.org) on Sunday January 07, @10:22PM EST (#1)
(User #3 Info) http://www.vortxweb.net/gorgias/mens_issues/index.html
I am posting the following for claude saint-jarre:

I can understand that women want violence toward them being stopped. But violence is a human phenomena, not just a men's phenomena; it is a
complex problem and this complexity is not reflected in laws and certainly not in bill 117.

Two examples:

1) Wars. Wars are extremely violent toward both sexes but men suffer greatly in a special way because they have been and still are conscripted. They are forced to kill or be killed. Laws authorize governments to be owners of men's bodies and dispose them in wars killings.

2) As shown in Claire Renzetti's book Violent Betrayal, homoxesual violence from women to women equal and even greater than heterosexual violence from men to women.

Does the bill 117 mirror that?

claude saint-jarre

Re:Bill 117 (Score:1)
by BusterB on Monday January 08, @12:58AM EST (#2)
(User #94 Info) http://themenscenter.com/busterb/
Of course bill 117 does not mirror reality.

It doesn't mirror reality because the politicians, the courts, the lawyers, and the "women's rights" activists have discovered the last great formula for success of the old millenium:

If you create laws that purport to rescue women then, no matter how badly those same laws crush men, women will give you something between lukewarm and wholehearted support while men will give you either no support or grudging support. If, on the other hand, you create carefully-considered laws that do not appear to protect women as well but are crafted to be fair to men, women will not support you at all while men will give you either no support or grudging support.

No matter what laws they draft, from fair and equitable laws to draconian laws designed to imprison men to "protect" women, men's support changes little. Oh, sure: you'll lose some men, but you'll gain others. (Men concerned with justice will vote against laws that bash men, but then male feminist sycophants will vote against laws that are fair to men.)

However, if you draft laws that purport to "protect" women, then women will vote for you and approve of you no matter what effect those laws may have on men. When the chips are down, women care more about their own security vis a vis bad men than they do about good men having security from persecution by the law. Most any woman, given the choice between putting herself a little bit more in jeopardy and sending a whole lot of innocent men to jail will choose the latter.

And that is why Bill 117 does not reflect reality.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]