Criiminalizing ordinary private behavior

========================

This criminalizing of ordinary private behavior and incarceration
without due process follows classic police-state practices. Evidence is
irrelevant, hearsay is admissible, defendants have no right to confront
their accusers, and forced confessions are a common feature.

-- Phyllis Schafly
========================

I could have written that myself, if I were a better writer. I hope she doesn't mind if I plagiarize a bit of her wording...

I doubt many people here in Australia know Phyllis Schafly. I've read her commentaries since the days of the Watts Riots and Richard Nixon. She was a staunch supporter of Nixon. (They were both from California.) I was opposed to Nixon and the Vietnam War, despite my own relatively conservative private views and lifestyle.

Her writings about the Watts Riots in 1968 in the LA Times almost started another riot. She gave the impression that she could quell the riots single-handedly, with just the force of her character.

She and I have always been on opposite sides. Now, I find that this formidable figure in -- and someone once cited as an example of feminism -- and I are solidly on the same side.
Why?
Because she is a right-minded person who sees the intolerable inequities and injustice in the current (radical) feminist legal structure.

One thing we must do as the tide turns -- And it will turn. -- is to remember not to imitate those who have perpetrated these injustices. It is too easy to want revenge and not justice.
We must show that we truly seek equality, not equal brutality, in the law when the public tide turns our way. We must show true leadership, as any father is expected show leadership in a family.

There are many who say these laws are only reactions to the injustices against women. These people are only on that side because it is popular. If they were truly seeking equality before the law for women, illegitimate legal structures such as OWA and VAWA would not exist in their present form; and the legal practice that supports them would not be such a perversion of human and civil rights.

I tend to want to hold law to the same standard as my favorite definition of an adult: An adult is responsible for the results of their actions.

What does that mean?
For example: An adult is driving down a public street, within the speed limit, sober, and driving defensively. A child jumps out and is hit.
There is no time to spend explaining that the driver was legally driving on the road. An adult deals with the results and checks the child, then calls the police.
What happens after that may be a perversion of reason or justice, but it was just an unavoidable accident. No matter what the law may say or do, the adult must live with their own conscience.

I look at what happened to me under this perverse legal system, and I can't help but wonder what parent would want to teach that sort of thing to their children.
What parent would want to teach their sons to be abusive? Or would want to teach their daughters to be victims?
Or worse, what parent can conscionably teach a child to abuse the law by lying, and train them to the brutal hypocrisy of the role of a victim/abuser? -- even if it is defined as legal before some momentarily "politically correct" law?

A psychopath sees the world as simply a game. The law and social attitudes are the "rules" of the game. People are only pieces; chattel for the game.
The difference in western culture, and the reason people risk their lives daily to be a part of it, is that people are equal before the law, and have rights that no law can violate. If we lose that, we may solve the immigration problem quickly ...