|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:37 AM March 18th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
- They do not represent real civil liberty issues - just issues that effect women, gays, atheists and liberal causes.
Men get much harsher sentences in EVERY regard compared to women. Does the ACLU care? No. The feminists who have brought ravage to the American families in terms of divorce laws and such have stated that if good men get swept away because of our laws - it is an acceptable consequence. Yet, convicted (and believe me for a woman to get convicted - she really messed up) female felons are in jail only because the laws were intended to go after men should be let go? This is insane!
Does the ACLU care about the constitutional violations that men go through as daily process when in divorce court (wage garnishing, property seizure, loss of parental rights…)? NO
The whole domestic violence industry is based upon allegation alone with severe repercussions for any man alleged to have done wrong. Pre-judicial punishment is becoming standardized. Does ACLU care- NO
The list goes on and on....
THE ACLU is a Marxist hate machine. Good men have to stand up against feminist ghate laws and the ACLU.
It is time
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kyo on 11:34 AM March 18th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Most imprisoned women, and relatively few imprisoned men, leave behind children for whom they were the sole primary caretaker.
See, we men wouldn't know, since we never get the opportunity to be the sole primary caretaker!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 01:34 PM March 18th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
- They do not represent real civil liberty issues - just issues that effect women, gays, people who trust in science more than the holy babble, and others who happen to have a disproportionately high net worth.
Men get much harsher sentences in EVERY regard compared to women. Does the ACLU care? No. The feminists who have brought ravage to the American families in terms of divorce laws and such have stated that if good men get swept away because of our laws - it is an acceptable consequence. Yet, convicted (and believe me for a woman to get convicted - she really messed up) female felons are in jail only because the laws were intended to go after men should be let go? This is insane!
Does the ACLU care about the constitutional violations that men go through as daily process when in divorce court (wage garnishing, property seizure, loss of parental rights…)? NO
The whole domestic violence industry is based upon allegation alone with severe repercussions for any man alleged to have done wrong. Pre-judicial punishment is becoming standardized. Does ACLU care- NO
The list goes on and on....
THE ACLU is a LASSIEZ FAIRE hate machine. Good men have to stand up against feminist hate laws and the ACLU.
It is time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:42 PM March 18th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
The ACLU is deeply complicit in anti-male hate. That much is clear. It's also clear that supporting anti-male hate is not in the ACLU charter. The ACLU is another organization that has been hijacked by male-haters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:34 AM March 19th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
In my country Israel the Feminazis planning
Knesset rules to move ALL female criminals to vacation camps instead of prison!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:33 AM March 18th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Ignorance is killing my fellow man with words and more words serving no usefull purpose. Prisons, jails, family courthouses, child support centres, social service buildings, rape crises centres, sexual harrassment tribunals, womens refuges and shelters, the electric chair, the gas chamber, the lethal injection chamber were designed to institutionalise the assault on mankinds body and space.
Cannot specially dedicated assault teams be organised to smash down these landmarks of hate against mankind. This kind of uprising activity in itself will firstly give hope to our hopeless comrades living in fear and despairing for their lives and also send a message to the misandric world of its comming demise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:16 PM March 18th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Society and law do everything they can to destroy Fathers, and then blame them for not being Fathers. Society is very concerned that Mothers in prison have programs to keep children in their lives, but have no such programs for men. Again the double standard.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"make a detailed case that existing drug laws "have had specific, devastating and disparate effects on women."
"make a detailed case that existing DIVORCE laws "have had specific, devastating and disparate effects on MEN."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by crescentluna
(evil_maiden @ yahoo.com)
on 03:59 PM March 19th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I'd bet money that most men in prison that are accused of "not being the sole caretakers" are
A. not allowed to be
B. unaware they have children in the first place
Additionally, a friend of mine didn't want to bring her baby to visit the father while he was in prison. He brought her to court over it, saying he had just as much of a right to see his kid as anyone else. He lost, the judge said to his face "if you wanted to see your kid, you would've stayed out of prison."
Having a kid is no excuse for breaking the law, apparently, for either mothers or fathers. If that's the standard, so be it, we don't need another double one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could this judges Ruling be used as a prescedent to 'stop' women seeing their children whilst in prison ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by crescentluna
(evil_maiden @ yahoo.com)
on 04:45 AM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I'll dig around to see if I can find the case, or if it got thrown out at that point. I think it could be used if, say, the custodial parent or guardian wasn't feeling generous and the mother was saying it was her 'right' to see the kid while in prison. But I think custodial rights while in prison is still up to individual judges at this point [hazarding a guess].
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Tumescent writes "Some of the issues pointed out in