|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When someone, usually a man, strikes or threatens his spouse, charges are warranted. That's simple.
This single statement says it all. The article is just another spin on seeking to criminalize men, providing women with funds and services to do so, and getting the police to prosecute men for an act like raising their voice. We've seen it all before.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The few parts of this article that are friendly to men appear more by accident than design. Or, perhaps, given the editorial policy of the Vancouver Sun, this is as much as the writer could get into print.
I'm pleased that at least the article mentions, several times, that allegations of abuse without witnesses (proof) shouldn't be immediately believed. This is a step forward. Most articles on domestic abuse won't touch this idea with a ten foot pole.
However, most of the article regurgitates the usual dross: cuts in legal aid will hurt poor women victims of DV; men should get the message that we won't tolerate abuse, but the cuts may hurt our chances of getting those nasty men.
One curious observation was that cuts to legal aid may tempt women to invent stories of abuse just to get to the front of the line for scarce free legal help. Now, as a men's rights junkie, I think to myself, "As if women need any more exuses," but I suppose that this idea that women might invent allegations is still radical for most of the population.
Oh well. It's a start, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To warble and BusterB:
Yup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is crap.
It's nice to know they finally care about men, when prosicution is getting to expensive.
They know the effects and costs of bill 117 in ontario, they are clearly "tainting" the jury pool on this.
If we looked at this a little closer I wouldnt be surprised if some group is pushing more for a bill 117 type agenda, and the party in power has to difuse it because it can't afford it.
If anyone should be critizing bill 117 they should be pointing out how the increase of murder suicides have skyrocketted since it implimentation.
So we end up with 1/4 of the charges laid resulting in convictions, I think thats high because so many men just plead to avoid the costs of trial, as we have seen they have to pay.
Still no mention of male victims on a large scale basis, but they know false accusations are occuring. It is money, hit them in the wallet and those fucks will cave, thats all its ever been about. The thing about immagrants not knowing about these services maybe partially true, but since we are never given numbers and its in reality a racist tactic. We are left assuming that women's rights are dimished the farther we get away from Canada they must be abused. More bullshit. I can list off about 100 guys with either latino, porteguese, italian etc... girlfriends that need these services as much as any woman. More blanket demonization of men from foriegn countries, don't fall for this until they post the stats, or even better until you meet the families.
Besides they are only talking about administration costs in reality, do you know how much the printing business makes of this?????? I do, and its lots.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 20, @02:02PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Feminism intentionally fails to recognize that factors such as alcoholism, drug abuse, poverty, and mental illness are probably the core aspects of abuse, instead they (feminuts) favor the idea that these problems are byproducts of “patriarchal values” and thus gender roles must be reversed to solve problems of abuse.
This keeps unskilled workers (i.e. womyn studies majors) with jobs in female-run government bureaucracies, and no rational action is made to fix the problem, other than create a Marxist police state where evidentiary hearings are replaced with gender specific entitlements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brilliant point Anon.
This goes into things such as sex assault and everything else under the sun.
There is no such thing as a fair Trial for Men in Canada.
Do not let this happen in the States.
Canada is not the best place in the world to live.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 20, @02:32PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
There is no such thing as a fair Trial for Men in Canada. Do not let this happen in the States.
Don't worry it won't. In the U.S. the men simply go to jail without a trial. If they are poor they get the luxery of the video trial. Then they are sentanced to prison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Don't worry it won't. In the U.S. the men simply go to jail without a trial. If they are poor they get the luxery of the video trial. Then they are sentanced to prison."
I think its getting very close to "lock and load" time.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scary thought, Dan, but it seems as though it may be inevitable. I had a conversation with another prominent men's activist (who shall remain nameless for now) along these lines just after the US 2000 election. He told me that if the outcome had been different, he believes that it would have already begun.
Seems like the real roadblock is the media. If we could just break through that somehow and get the truth out. And the key to that is the advertisers. Their hot button is very visible and reachable, but you can't reach it without market share of some sort.
Sports TV is a market men pretty-much own. We ought to be able to hurt ESPN if they keep this shit up. But it needs to be exposed somehow, on a larger scale than we have here.
Is there someone who can write an editorial for MND or WorldNewsDaily? Get we get Farrah to write something? How about TooGood? (Some less paranoid than Makow, preferrably)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Is there someone who can write an editorial for MND or WorldNewsDaily? Get we get Farrell to write something? How about TooGood? (Some less paranoid than Makow, preferrably)"
Lol!
Brilliant idea, even Wendy McElroy should consider this.
But I have to ask, despite all the e-mailings of our plight, is this getting anywhere? Is it raising attention?? Hopefully the conference tomorrow will do some good.
I think half the problem is, advertisers know women buy most of the shit, so the marketing is catered to them. There is a line in the "Princess Bride".
"Buttercup: You mock my pain!
Man in black: Life is pain, highness! Anyone who says differently is selling
something.".
Which transelates for my purpose into: Marketing engineers know that if women have money they will spend it, shopping is their "full contact" sport. They promise to take away the pain from the big bad "man", just buy a new pair of shoes. As paranoid as Makow appears, his circumstantial evidence certainly adds up. There are some heavy missing links of which he has no "proofs" to support his theory, or least he hasnt e-mailed them to me yet, but the "circumstantial evidence" is evident and it is our plight.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<No simple solution to spousal abuse
But it's always worth asking if there's a better way to deal with it>>
I couldn't agree more.
<<Vancouver Sun
Wednesday, June 19, 2002>>
<<Some things are simple and some things are complicated when it comes to spousal abuse.>>
Again couldn't agree more
<<When someone, usually a man, strikes or threatens his spouse, charges are warranted. That's simple. And laying the charge should be automatic -- it shouldn't have to wait for the victim, who may be intimidated or confused by conflicting emotions about a lover turned aggressor, to formally request it>>
Wrong on the "usually a man and not entirely right on the charges are warrented So also wrong on the "simple". Why should the charges be laid? Are there other options?? This treats adults like children, adults are not children. If they want power to reside in the victim, let the victim make the choice.
<<So our legal system has to recognize that some victims fear the consequences of advocating charges, or even speaking to police. Some may be trying to save their relationship or to reform their partner. Some may forgo charges for the sake of children, whom they fear would be harmed by a rift.
But when someone alleges that an abuse has taken place, and there's no clear evidence of it, that's complicated.>>
Wow shocking, its complicated, all those years of advanced credits , university and its "complicated" thanks for showing up.
<<Police certainly have to take any allegation of abuse very seriously. But should they be laying charges in almost every instance of alleged abuse, as is currently the case? That's complicated.>>
Its actually not complicated, its actually called "pandering", politicians like the term "complicated" much better though.
<<When divorce proceedings are under way, and there's a dubious allegation that may be motivated by a spouse seeking an advantage in settlement or custody issues, should police lay charges? That's complicated.
When does a heated argument become a threatening situation? When a door is slammed, or a dish is broken? What is a violent act? A thrown dishrag or a raised hand? Complicated.>>
I think this guy should call NASA, he's clearly wasting his talent.
<<When cost-cutting Attorney-General Geoff Plant undertakes a review of the province's sensitive, contentious policy on laying spousal abuse charges, and the relaxation of the rules would lead to financial savings, should his motives be questioned?>>
Yes his motives should be examined, by the public, thats why its called a public office.
But its nice to know that they are realizing its a bigger picture (when its costing to much money, and the groups that are usually in support of this are not quite big enough to support and or gain support from, along with the other agendas on his plate.
<<When that same attorney-general has cut legal aid so deeply that family-law aid will be provided to women only if they're in an abusive relationship or their children are at risk, should women doubt his interest in protecting theirs?
When poor women have family-law legal aid available to them only in those circumstances, will they be more likely to level a false allegation in order to obtain the help they need?>>
Legally this can't be done (it goes against that human bill of rights thingy). If criminal charges are laid, they will have to "pay" for legal aid, or it cuts the chances of a "fair trial" whatever that is. So if the province can't afford it, a "Zero Tolerance" policy is not going to work. They can't be prosecuting everyone that moves like they do in Ontario, because most of the money made in BC is probably from Marijuanna, and its not taxable, yet, so they can't afford to both prosicute and defend the accused while providing services to shelters. The femifrauds will not like this making things difficult for the Attorney General , so the next line although repetitive, is accurate.
<<Complicated, complicated, complicated.>>
<<The statistics suggest there's a problem with the existing system. Nearly half the charges of abuse laid by the Crown in 2000 were eventually stayed. Of those that went to trial, only 48 per cent resulted in a conviction.>>
I'd like to know the results of men who plead guilty to avoid the cost of a lawyer and the risk of jail despite their feelings of innocence because of one reason or another, she hit him first or did the same thing, or it was a manipulative lie.
<<Those numbers mask a subtler reality, where witnesses are reluctant to incriminate family, where reconciliations or break-ups make the issues less pressing, where counselling works, where peace bonds are deemed an adequate resolution by the victim.
But the costs associated with prosecutions that don't result in convictions, as well as the effect that adversarial proceedings have on people's lives, still pose that age-old question: Is there a better way?
There's no fault in asking it.>>
It's nice to know our Politicians are finally asking if there is a better way,(when the other way costs to much money). Like many others here, I feel that DV is a human problem, what they are saying is the cost of prosecuting "men" is getting to expensive.
<<There's no fault either in wondering why such a startling number of alleged abuse cases are reported to police -- nearly 10,000 in 2000, the last year for which statistics are available.
And how many cases go unreported, especially among recent immigrants who may not know of or are afraid to ask for resources that are foreign to them? How do we reach those people? How do we arrest the incidence of domestic violence, so it will not in time be repeated by the children who endure it?>>
Total strawman arguement based on assumptions, and by there own standards that 10 000 has been knocked down to 2 500 real cases, that range from severe to a thrown tea towel. Yes I think we should be asking ourselves if we should be prosecuting people for throwing tea towels. As far as I know no-one has advocated throwing tea towels as a moral and dignant thing to do, so striking that one off the books Im sure won't put us into moral chaos.
<<Mr. Plant's government won't save any short-term money addressing those problems, although there might be real long-term benefits. But where can the government find those funds?>>
Oh where indeed? I'd tell you what I think about that but I dont want to insult your intelligence for stating the obvious.
<<Complicated.>>
Theres that word again.
<<There are a couple of things that we can take from all this, however.
Any effort to re-examine the policy of laying charges in virtually every instance of alleged abuse, developed after years of contentious debate -- and decades of lamentable failure by the police and Crown prosecutors to involve themselves in "family business" -- must be very public, bipartisan and transparent. Private meetings of Crown prosecutors, ministry officials and politicians are not sufficient.>>
Really, well thanks for allowing us to sit at the "grown ups table" on this one. Holy fuk.
<<And at the end of the process, whatever policies are implemented, abusers must know that our society has no tolerance for violence or the threat of violence. And those who are found guilty of either should expect serious consequences.>>
Actually it does have tolerance for violence, everytime it turns its head on female perpetrators. This is not an attack on women but an honest observation made by far greater minds than myself. If you want to deal with this problem, look at the whole picture and make everyone accountable for their actions, dissect it and find a better solution. We have been turning a blind eye a violence against men for so long its just a punch line in every joke. No one here is saying that men dont commit voilence against women we are just saying that if we seriously and I mean "seriously" want to address the problem, and not '"pander" to a political lobby group that doesnt have the sence ,education or even dignity to look at themselves as a possible problem then please continue with your "huxism" because we are not being fooled anymore.
There is one thing that comes with voilence it comes hand in hand, its called 'forgiveness'. Jail will never cure anyone of violent behavoir, infact it only seasons it. Forgiveness, understanding and responisible parenting of both sexes will.
The reason those are not so popular is, jail is just so much easier, and forgiveness is the hard way out, but the right way.
It's tuff for me too, but Im working on it.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
