Domestic violence Abuses the Rights of Men

Domestic violence law abuses rights of men By Phyllis Schlafly May 12, 2006

Phyllis Schafly is a widely-published author and commentator, and maintains an active presence on the lecture circuit. In 1972, she founded the Eagle Forum, a conservative organization originally headquartered in Alton, Illinois and now maintaining offices in St. Louis, Missouri and Washington, D.C. as well. (from the wikipedia article)

Phyllis Schafly is one of the last people in America that I ever expected to agree with publicly.
Although I am privately conservative, -- I don't do drugs. I volunteered for the military because I feel that every young man owes a few years to his country. -- publicly and politically I have most often found myself supporting (American) liberal goals and causes. For most of my life, Mrs. Schafly has defined the intolerant, right-wing in her writings.Yet on some issues, all Americans of good character must agree: It is wrong to pass a law which discriminates and makes people unequal before the law.Mrs. Scahafly laments that the Republicans have passed and reauthorized the VAWA. I cannot help but smile wryly at her dismay. It seems we are all at the mercy of whims of public opinion so adeptly shaped by anti-male propoganda.In her article, we see that the requirement for perjury is built into the American process as deeply as the Australian:

Passage of the Violence Against Women Act was a major priority of the American Bar Association for whose members it is a cash cow. …
A recently issued ABA document called “Tool for Attorneys” provides lawyers with a list of suggestive questions to encourage their clients to make domestic-violence charges. Knowing that a woman can get a restraining order against the father of her children in an ex parte proceeding without any evidence, and that she will never be punished for lying, domestic-violence accusations have become a major tactic for securing sole child custody.

The phrase, “ex parte”, simply means without the other party present; in other words, without the person being able to face his accusers. This phrase has been the foulest of language in the legal profession since the Magna Carta. It is the definition of an act contrary to the principles of western jurisprudence and law.
When a judge takes one side into chambers exclusive of another, then renders a judgment, that judge is making an illegitimate ruling before the law. It is judgment that every citizen, person and official should refuse to obey, unless they themselves would like to become the victim(s) of such a judgment.

Combined with the assumption of guilt, which is integral to an ex parte judgment, the practice renders the law unconstitutional in the United States – or it should. Then again, no one ever said George W Bush was a constitutional or legal scholar. He certainly is not.
To me personally, the champion of this law, Sen Joseph Biden, is a particular disappointment. I would have voted for him when he ran for President. Fortunately, thanks to the people of Massachussetts, I never had the displeasure.

I had to chuckle when I read this paragraph, since I could have written it myself:

Advocates of the Violence Against Women Act assert that domestic violence is a crime, yet family courts often adjudicate domestic violence as a civil (not a criminal) matter. This enables courts to deny the accused all Bill of Rights and due process protections that are granted to even the most heinous of criminals.

America is going to rediscover the values of their Bill of Rights, and find the courage to stick with them, even if it means personal and national danger. I have that faith in my country.

What I am concerned about is that these laws have gone so far afield, too far in one direction, and there will be an inevitable backlash. Some would say that these laws themselves are a backlash against unfair practices and attitudes against women. I can’t deny the validity of those arguments; I’ve made them myself.
However, these laws are contrary to the most important standards of western culture and law. They serve to erode the foundations of the law. Men, as a discriminated ethnic group undefined in these laws, have no rights before these laws.
These laws pave the way for ever greater erosions, an example is the recent spate of anti-terrorist laws. If they are allowed to stand, the imagery becomes quickly apocalyptic.
The backlash could easily get out of hand in such an atmosphere of indifference to the foundations of law. It is what happens when law is not balanced by commitments to human and civil rights, either by social paradigms or constitutional parameters.

One of the favourite (radical) feminist chants is that women have been treated like chattel – as property defined in the law.
What must be realized is that these laws reduce women in families and relationships to exactly that. Chattel before the law can be understood as meaning the law too well defines the role in society. A slave is a person whose role is too well defined in a society. All of history serves innumerable examples.
The problem with law is that it does define too well. In order to write a law that can be enforced, the word of the law in question must be severely limiting. Another way of understanding that is to say that the law limits the intuitive human rights of the person.
These laws not only define the men as an abusers; but the women as victims.
Neither victim nor abuser is a healthy definition for a human being.

--Paul