Massive Human Rights Abuses in the Name of Stopping Abuse
by Carey Roberts | View comments |
Print This Post
In the United States, one million restraining orders are issued each year without even an allegation of violence.
Remember Colleen Nester? She was the forlorn New Mexico woman who claimed she was being harassed by TV talk show host David Letterman, who was allegedly beaming mental telepathic messages and using televised facial gestures. Under New Mexico law, harassment is a form of domestic violence, so Ms. Nester was granted a restraining order.
Yes, really.
Domestic violence is defined so broadly these days that just raising your voice is now considered grounds for state invention. The mere allegation of abuse invites a draconian response, requiring the man to vacate his home and avoid any contact with the woman or even his own children.
Many believe protective orders do more harm than good. “Few lives, if any, have been saved, but much harm, and possibly loss of lives, has comes from the issuance of restraining orders,” writes Milton Raphaelson, retired judge from the Dudley, Mass. District Court.
But the somber voice of reason is drowned out by the shrill clatter of advocates who argue we must nip abusive situations in the bud, even if innocent men must be falsely accused and constitutional protections set aside.
In the United States, one million restraining orders are issued each year without even an allegation of violence – recall the David Letterman dust-up. State-sanctioned disdain of civil liberties has now spread to foreign lands.
Earlier this year Mexican lawmakers passed a new domestic violence law that allows authorities to issue emergency protective orders. Now a conviction of being jealous or sexually indifferent can land a hapless man in jail.
In Costa Rica, an American ex-patriate was recently put behind bars when he told his girlfriend’s son to stop painting satanic symbols on the wall. One police officer noted, “Women in Costa Rica are taking advantage of this new law. They throw out their boyfriend and then steal their things and leave.”
In Canada, “judges routinely hold five-minute hearings at the start of the day and make ex parte orders without any inquiries as to why the opposing party cannot be notified,” reveals Louise Malenfant of Parents Helping Parents.
In Israel, the Knesset recently appointed a committee to probe the extent of false claims of domestic violence. Last month Dr. Orli Iness of the University of Haifa revealed, “there have been reports that in some precincts the figure is as high as 50%.”
A 1999 survey of judicial magistrates in Australia concluded that “almost 90% believe domestic violence orders were used by applicants – often on the advice of a solicitor – as a tactic in family court proceedings to deprive their partners of access to their children.”
Libertarian Casandra Hewitt-Reid of New Zealand describes her country’s Domestic Violence Act in these terms: “It is possible for a perfectly innocent man, who has done nothing outside the law, to be sent to prison on one person’s unsubstantiated word.”
In Germany, Michael Bock, criminology professor at the University of Mainz, reveals that the so-called Force Law (Gewaltschutzgesetz) “gives an effective tool to the hands of mothers who want to separate children from their fathers . . . It is not meant to start a constructive dialog between the parties, but to expropriate, disempower, lock out, and punish men.”
Last year Maria Sanahuja, chief justice in Barcelona, Spain issued a scathing commentary on her country’s Gender Violence Law. Sanahuja rebuked the law as representing a “repugnant violation of fundamental rights” that has caused “enormous pain to tens of thousands of men.” Sanahuja’s acid opinion concludes, “The massive detention of men for scarcely any reason is a characteristic of totalitarian countries.”
In India the situation has reached crisis proportions. Section 498a of the Cruelty Against Women Law has led to widespread arrests of husbands with no evidence of wrong-doing. Because the law states the man’s relatives are likely accessories to the crime, many thousands of brothers, sisters, and elderly parents have also been wrongly imprisoned. In 2005 the Indian Supreme Court labeled the egregious abuses of Section 498a to be an “assassin’s weapon” and a form of “legal terrorism.”
Last April a group known as RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) sent a letter to Senator Joseph Biden, pleading that he not introduce a bill ominously called the International Violence Against Women Act.
Earlier this month, Senator Biden shrugged off the concerns and introduced the Act. If passed, the law would send $175 million of taxpayer money to foreign governments to issue more restraining orders and to kick men out of their homes without evidence or proof.
careyroberts@comcast.net
Read more articles by Carey Roberts
What's interesting about these sorts of "laws" is that they deprive the
father of any "due process" in the name of a "higher morality" (presumably
protecting a helpless woman). Of course no one wishes to abet an abuser, but
what is interesting is the utter lack of interest in the loss of the father's due process
by politicians. The answer as to why this is so isn't hard to surmise. When fifty percent
of the population (most females) see these sorts of laws as directly benefiting them,
they will hardly support their change. And there are enough male monsters to
justify their existence, in the eyes of those who feel threatened.
Historically, it's in these such cases that the case for protecting the rights of the
"minority" need to be upheld. Because the "majority" of the population believed that
not paying their debts was "morally correct". this hardly justified the abuse of the
rights of landlords and lenders from having their property rights violated.
The same logic must apply to situations such as restraining orders, child custody
and the like.
The breakdown of the rights of the individual (in this case, fathers) may be traced to the
late 1960s, when "moral issues" became the rhetorical form for curtailing
discussion on issues which should have been open to public debate. Affirmative action, for
instance, was implemented by federal directive during the Nixon administration.
There was never any debate, let alone "vote" about it. It's justification was simple
"moral imperative."
For a liberal, a "moral imperative" is a way of justifying state violence. For a conservative,
the idea that the state can enact social "moral reform" is an absurdity. The state is a
coercive entity and its' powers shoudl be restricted.
COnservatives lost the "cultural war" in the 1960s and the result was that state violence
now proceeds relatively unchecked. Its ferocity can be ascribed to the fact that in the eyes of many
liberals, its "punishments" are "moral retribution" of one sort or another. The "rights of the
individual" are less important than moral vision (enforced by the state)
which supersedes them.
The liberal vision's longevity comes in its disregard for individual rights. IN the case of
child support, the father is reduced to poverty (in addition to losing his child), which prevents
him from ever contesting the "moral vision" imposed by the courts. In this way, there
can be no individual protest–and the loss of "individual rights" rarely rises
into the public eye. The "absence of debate" is quickly assumed by liberals to
indicate a "moral consensus."
Comment by Nathan Alexander | November 20, 2007