My comments on this are a little more strident given the target for this legislation is men. it may be written in gender neutral language but its no accident the victims they pick are women. Its as if these toadies in the legislature think the names their partners call them, male or female, will be exempt from the law. Wouldn't it be nice to see the legislation also include the partner looking at the other or another person in a lascivious or objectified fashion also would result in said prosecution. Very few legislators would be able to do their job starting with Sarkozy. I'm being sarcastic at these useful idiots who cow tow to feminist whims.
In terms of your local DV shelter's operational indoctrination of clients and the influence of the Duluth Wheel in victim feminist discourse the use of name calling as Domestic Abuse in Family Court is already used against dads - and there is no law. Such is the influence of victim feminist ideology.
These accusations may not even be true but even if they are it is another pointer giving rise to the notion these feminists are but children in adult bodies. Read the article in the Ventura County Star Newspaper
www.vcstar.com/.../55000-ordered-paid-for-false-accusation to see what false allegations can do to a man and despite the fact they were untrue, despite the fact the man was put in jail for almost two months and he received a $55,000.00 monetary reward after proving the charges were false the female was not charged with anything.
It would not surprise me such a law might get passed by the French government by well meaning, chivalrous, male useful idiots and feminists but once it is passed and all men start ending up being charged and put in jail while the economy collapses I suspect we will see a revolt and if asked I would become a mercenary to drive these clowns from ever holding office again.
If politicians don't smarten up and stay out of the lives of its citizens, particularly its men, they will soon learn we are patient to a fault but there comes a time when that patience will be provoked into action that if not achieved by civil disobedience then civil unrest it will be a revolution of masculinity, where males finally rediscover they do have family jewels and its high time they were used to put order into the chaos caused by Marxist Victim Feminism.
We will watch the French situation closely and see what kind of debate occurs.MJM
Barbara Kay, 'Allo Police? My boyfriend just called me a "vache"! Arrest him! France's proposed new "psychological violence" bill
I think we're all in favour of the proposition that men and women should treat each other respectfully. It would be a bright and sunny world if every day were Valentine's Day in each and every couple's home. Sadly, this world is populated by real human beings, who often are losers, or get into foul moods for reasons good and bad, or grew up with verbally abusive parents, or for any number of other reasons can't always be counted on to treat their domestic partners with absolute courtesy.
Verbal abuse isn't pleasant. Nobody likes to be called a fat cow, or crazy or stupid, but when life's a bitch because your partner is crude, mean-spirited or cruel, who ya' gonna call? Traditionally you call your mom to vent, or a friend, or a therapist - or nobody, you just deal with it - but if a new bill backed by the government is passed by France's parliament, the French will indeed soon be able to call the police when their partner bad-mouths them and he will be charged with "psychological violence."
I assume it is always going to be "he" that gets charged, since in the longish
BBC news article about this proposed innovation, including interviews with women psychologists and lawyers, I saw no mention of men being victims, only perpetrators. That tells me the bill is ideologically inspired by feminists, who seem to think that women are too fragile to fend off an insult from their boyfriend, too timid to give as good as they get, or too stupid to know where the front door is and use it.
The intrusion of the state into the private relationship of couples in the absence of physical violence is wrong for any number of reasons, and will prove to be a disaster. Even its advocates admit a charge of psychological violence would be difficult to prove. Psychiatrist Marie-France Hirigoyen, an authority on psychological violence, says, "I think it's important to have a law, but it must be formulated so there isn't too much risk of manipulation of mistakes."
And how exactly would you "formulate" that? There is no way, and certainly should be no way for the state to assume the right to formulate what people are allowed to say to each other in the privacy of their homes. What's "offensive" to a goose may be a joke to a gander. What this bill proposes is the Orwellian state supervision of speech codes within the home. Why not simply install 1984-style Big Brother TV screens in everyone's home? That way, charges of psychological violence can be made to stick according to what the state committee on "formulation" decides is "violence" and what is not.
If a woman, or a man, believes his partner is deliberately inflicting psychological cruelty on him, it is his responsibility to insist it stop, or insist they get help, or walk out. Allowing the state to decide and punish the offending party (and how would you do that? Fines? A jail term for calling your girlfriend ugly?) basically says people have no moral agency to set the rules of engagement in their most intimate relationships, essentially an idea so totalitarian that even Communist countries have never tried to implement it (Communists bugged people's homes to ferret out politically incorrect thoughts, not to monitor domestic intimacy).
Such a bill would also open the door to state intervention around psychological violence against children. There's certainly plenty of that around. How many kids have we heard being spoken to in public with a casual cruelty that makes us wince? Aren't they in greater need of a law against psychological violence, since they can't walk out?
I pity the poor men of France if this bill passes. As it is, women for any number of reasons - custody battles, revenge for perceived or real insults, or just because it's an easy end to a difficult moment - falsely allege physical violence, which the police and courts routinely indulge without proof. Conversely physical violence against men for which there is proof is routinely ignored. If this bill passes, French women will have licence to assault men psychologically - "you're no man, you let your boss walk all over you;" "you call that lovemaking?" - with impunity, not that any real man, ironically enough, would dream of complaining to the police about such insults, however diminishing and painful they were. But women will hold the power to invoke the state's enormous punitive powers when they feel slighted. Or even when they don't, but have an axe to grind.
This is a Pandora's Box France will be very sorry she opened.
by Tossed Salad
Jan 05 2010
6:46 PM
Was he going to Chris Brown her? Don't forget Mary J. Blige Barb. The hypocrisy I sent you from my personal email account.
by rossbcan
Jan 05 2010
7:01 PM
Its "rule by divide and conquor".
Social stresses are being created so we turn on and blame each other, to create confusion and rationalize more power for our predators who pretend to solve problems of their own creation, for "necessity" (Machiavelli). We are heading into leaner times and our puppetmasters want blame deflected (from them). We, the people discovering "common interest" is their enemy.
We used to teach children that:
"sticks and stones can break my bones, but, words can never hurt me"
To teach them the FACT that we live in an action precedes consequence reality and nothing is real until it becomes measurable in the REAL world of physically reality. All else is illusion and unsubstantiated opinion.
www.cli.gs/IntelligentChoice
The legitimacy of any law can be measured and validated by asking:
Does the sanction (harm, by law) fit the crime (harm, by individual). If not, it is the law initiating aggression, a basic negation and reversal of the purpose of law (keep the peace):
http://www.cli.gs/RuleOfLaw
And, despite the fact this law may appear to give females an advantage, it actually weakens females by making it unnecessary to deal with or walk away from their own problems, a dependency and therefore, survival hit. Females should strongly oppose this:
www.cli.gs/DarwinReconsidered
Both inferiority or dominance for females are a survival disadvantage. Insist on "equality, in terms of rights and responsibilities". Only then can you have self-esteem, respect and a meaningful life.
by OracleMan
Jan 05 2010
7:27 PM
The legal opinion, I believe, is that it's already actionable for a man to "verbally abuse" his spouse in Canada. It is certainly grounds for an automatic police intervention. So welcome to the Femino-Fascist world, France!
The goal, people, is total intimidation of men, a strategy to SHUT THEM UP.
Remaining silent is something most husbands learn to do eventually. Welcome to Utopia.
by Neilio74
Jan 05 2010
7:28 PM
Any chance of a partner/spouse leaving a relationship that they considered abusive pyschologically or otherwise?
by edd333ed
Jan 05 2010
8:09 PM
As the total failure of liberal inspired penal reforms to deal with real problems becomes apparent, it makes a useful diversion for their proponents to suggest criminal law sanctions for trivial behaviour.
Thus the state, while continuously failing in its real roles of protecting the citizen's life, security of the person, and peaceful enjoyment of his home and other property, can claim to be doing something useful.
Police that are overstretched in dealing with drug-fueled street gangs, casual shootings of innocent bystanders, burglary and home invasion, religious violence and racial strife, and that are hobbled by political correctness, can be diverted towards determining whether males have called their significant others nasty, hurtful names. Meanwhile, civilization is burning.
Canadian governments are unwilling to enforce an anti-polygamy law, governments refuse to openly profile the group that has repeatedly attempted mass murder of airline passengers in repeat of its 9/11 successes, and major Toronto newspapers are unwilling to indicate the ethnic origins of those involved in violent street crime.
But do not fear: the calling of nasty names between significant others will be prosecuted. At least by the French. (If the nasty hurtfulness is aimed at a female. Apparently in France, women only murmur sweet endearments in moments of stress. Ah, quel pays.)
Query: would Simone de Beauvoir have been able to put Sartre away for his conduct? Or would he have been granted a pass? Will there be special understanding shown Party members, or intellectuals? For a couutry that used to be civilized, but torched about 1500 cars for fun on New Year's last, it seems to me the French have gone more than usually flaky.
by On Balance
Jan 05 2010
8:16 PM
Any government foolish enough to pass such draconian legislation is putting a noose around its neck. Men won't be intimidated by this....more likely, they will unite and lynch those responsible for throttling their rights and freedoms. In another word, revolt!
by Denis Pakkala
Jan 05 2010
9:47 PM
Dutton and Corvo 2006, Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice “Simply put, the evidence for theoretical patriarchy as a “cause” of wife assault is scant and contradicted by numerous studies: male dominant couples constitute only 9.6% of all couples (Coleman & Straus, 1985); women are at least as violent as men (Archer, 2000); women are more likely to use severe violence against nonviolent men than the converse (Stets & Straus, 1992a,b); powerlessness rather than power seems related to male violence; there are data contradicting the idea that men in North America find violence against their wives acceptable (Dutton, 1994; Simon et al., 2001) and that abusiveness is higher in lesbian relationships than in heterosexual relationships (Lie, Schilit, Bush, Montague, & Reyes, 1991) suggesting that intimacy and psychological factors regulating intimacy are more important than sexism (Dutton, 1994).”
“It is unfortunate that a once pioneering model has become an impediment to effective program and criminal justice responses to domestic violence. What was intended to be a progressive force for safety and liberation has become a rationale for narrow-minded social control.”
“What is the appeal to “conservatives” of what appears to be a “liberal feminist” framing of this issue, with its use of activist rhetoric? Simply put, it provides a rationale for the further criminalizing of deviance and an expansion of the power of the criminal justice system.”
“Duluth model adherents are interfering with the delivery of effective treatment intervention through state laws or policy that require a gender based but ineffective “intervention” as the model of choice. This disadvantages women partnered with men in treatment by precluding the availability of more effective psychologically based treatment. As Ehrensaft et al. (2004) put it “studies suggest that this single-sex approach is not empirically supported, because both partners' behaviors contribute to the risk of clinically significant partner abuse, and both partners should be treated.”
“No other area of established social welfare, criminal justice, public health, or behavioral intervention has such weak evidence in support of mandated practice.”
“Those with continued allegiance to the patriarchal view should stand back and ask themselves if their primary motivation is to advance the safety of women and families or to preserve a self-interested political stance”
“The science has moved well beyond the policy. It is time for the policy to change.”
by Denis Pakkala
Jan 05 2010
9:48 PM
Why would anyone want every day to be Valentine’s day, unless you’re a woman?
Valentine’s day is another day of the year where women expect to be put on a pedestal and receive presents and special treatment, which is often not reciprocated. Men should actively boycott V-day, since it is a symbol of women’s privilege. It’s a stupid holiday anyway; mutual and reciprocal love should be expressed 365 days a year.
I’m not sure what Ms. Kay’s definition of a “real man” is, but the use of the term is often manipulative to coerce men to behave with traditional chivalry and deference to women. Any “responsible adult” would not be complaining to the police about immature school yard name calling.
This is another step towards the complete subjugation of men by the state. Western societies opened the Pandora’s box of gender based selective criminal justice a long time ago, this is just another nail in the coffin of men’s rights. The reality is that men would be wise to install surveillance systems in their own homes to protect themselves against false allegations (to prove themselves innocent). Otherwise, men should avoid marriage and cohabitation altogether, it is just not worth the risk!
Why Modern, Western Marriage Has Become A Bad Business Decision For Men
dontmarry.wordpress.com MGTOW – Men Going Their Own Way
menforjustice.net/.../index.php
by Denis Pakkala
Jan 05 2010
9:50 PM
In Canada, we already have laws where women can make false accusations against men, and men are convicted based on the woman’s word alone. We have a gender based system of criminal justice where men are essentially guilty until proven innocent. If it turns out that the woman is lying, then that’s okay because we wouldn’t want to dissuade other women from making future allegations without evidence. Perjury and public mischief aren’t really laws since they aren’t enforced, at least not for women. The Canadian Charter of Rights…sounds nice, but not applicable for Canadian men!
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned…and using the power of the state to exact revenge!
“Any country that has tried to create a political solution to human problems has ended up with concentration camps and gulags.”—Erin Pizzey
Honourable Senator Anne C. Cools (Standing committee on Justice and Social Policy, Ontario Bill 117):
“Honourable members, I come here to ask for fairness, balance and equilibrium in this law. I do this because the legal and social condition around domestic violence is one that I can only describe as a heart of darkness. This condition is rendered more difficult by official government disinclination to accept the obvious fact that violence and aggression are human problems, not gender problems. I shall ask you to examine the proposition that men and women are equally capable of vice and equally capable of virtue, and that virtue is a human characteristic, not a gender one. “
“I submit to you that exclusive possession of the home, custody of the children, spousal and child support are sufficiently desirable and profitable to sometimes found deceit, deception and deviance. I would like to offer the committee the findings of the 1995 Ontario Civil Justice Review and also the Manitoba Civil Justice Review of 1996 in respect of their findings on family law. I have this material here before me if the committee is interested. In Manitoba, for example, the task force report stated: "The task force heard horror stories about the traumatic impact on the accused person, on the immediate family and children affected by malicious false allegations designed to achieve sole custody, prohibit or restrict visiting privileges, and to punish the other parent."
Here at home, we had the Ontario Civil Justice Review, co-chaired by Mr Justice Robert Blair. These same sorts of concerns are flagged and raised. As a matter of fact, Mr Justice Blair at one point said that civil justice in Ontario is in a crisis. I have studied this matter and I have reviewed some 52 cases, which I will be quite happy to share with you. I have here in my hands a list of 52 judgments from across the country of confirmed false allegations--not false allegations that were made, but false allegations that were found. These accusations are of mostly child sexual and physical abuse, mostly made by mothers, mostly against fathers, and the context, again, is mostly child custody and access proceedings”
by Denis Pakkala
Jan 05 2010
9:50 PM
In Canada, we already have laws where women can make false accusations against men, and men are convicted based on the woman’s word alone. We have a gender based system of criminal justice where men are essentially guilty until proven innocent. If it turns out that the woman is lying, then that’s okay because we wouldn’t want to dissuade other women from making future allegations without evidence. Perjury and public mischief aren’t really laws since they aren’t enforced, at least not for women. The Canadian Charter of Rights…sounds nice, but not applicable for Canadian men!
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned…and using the power of the state to exact revenge!
“Any country that has tried to create a political solution to human problems has ended up with concentration camps and gulags.”—Erin Pizzey
Honourable Senator Anne C. Cools (Standing committee on Justice and Social Policy, Ontario Bill 117):
“Honourable members, I come here to ask for fairness, balance and equilibrium in this law. I do this because the legal and social condition around domestic violence is one that I can only describe as a heart of darkness. This condition is rendered more difficult by official government disinclination to accept the obvious fact that violence and aggression are human problems, not gender problems. I shall ask you to examine the proposition that men and women are equally capable of vice and equally capable of virtue, and that virtue is a human characteristic, not a gender one. “
“I submit to you that exclusive possession of the home, custody of the children, spousal and child support are sufficiently desirable and profitable to sometimes found deceit, deception and deviance. I would like to offer the committee the findings of the 1995 Ontario Civil Justice Review and also the Manitoba Civil Justice Review of 1996 in respect of their findings on family law. I have this material here before me if the committee is interested. In Manitoba, for example, the task force report stated: "The task force heard horror stories about the traumatic impact on the accused person, on the immediate family and children affected by malicious false allegations designed to achieve sole custody, prohibit or restrict visiting privileges, and to punish the other parent."
Here at home, we had the Ontario Civil Justice Review, co-chaired by Mr Justice Robert Blair. These same sorts of concerns are flagged and raised. As a matter of fact, Mr Justice Blair at one point said that civil justice in Ontario is in a crisis. I have studied this matter and I have reviewed some 52 cases, which I will be quite happy to share with you. I have here in my hands a list of 52 judgments from across the country of confirmed false allegations--not false allegations that were made, but false allegations that were found. These accusations are of mostly child sexual and physical abuse, mostly made by mothers, mostly against fathers, and the context, again, is mostly child custody and access proceedings”
Jan 06 2010
12:57 AM
In terms of your local DV shelter's operational indoctrination of clients and the influence of the Duluth Wheel in victim feminist discourse the use of name calling as Domestic Abuse in Family Court is already used against dads - and there is no law. Such is the influence of victim feminist ideology.
These accusations may not even be true but even if they are it is another pointer giving rise to the notion these feminists are but children in adult bodies. Read the article in the Ventura County Star Newspaper
www.vcstar.com/.../55000-ordered-paid-for-false-accusation to see what false allegations can do to a man and despite the fact they were untrue, despite the fact the man was put in jail for almost two months and he received a $55,000.00 monetary reward after proving the charges were false the female was not charged with anything.
It would not surprise me such a law might get passed by the French government by well meaning, chivalrous, male useful idiots and feminists but once it is passed and all men start ending up being charged and put in jail while the economy collapses I suspect we will see a revolt and if asked I would become a mercenary to drive these clowns from ever holding office again.
If politicians don't smarten up and stay out of the lives of its citizens, particularly its men, they will soon learn we are patient to a fault but there comes a time when that patience will be provoked into action that if not achieved by civil disobedience then civil unrest it will be a revolution of masculinity, where males finally rediscover they do have family jewels and its high time they were used to put order into the chaos caused by Marxist Victim Feminism.
We will watch the French situation closely and see what kind of debate occurs.
by MikeMurphy
Jan 06 2010
1:09 AM
I checked out the BBC article and here is a quote:
"Lawyer Laurent Hincker, a fervent supporter of the bill, said it would not be the only crime on the books that is difficult to prove."
The lawyer and the feminists are collaborating again to provide another stream of income for this parasitic profession. I wonder if the composition of French lawmakers is similar to Canada's with a very large component of lawyers.
by Alexander (Sandy)
Jan 06 2010
2:45 AM
France, what a country. Last week, a respected French psychiatrist recommended that French husbands take mistresses. This week, legislation is proposed that husbands be criminalized for telling their wife that they've taken the psychiatrist's advice.
by Fred_001
Jan 06 2010
3:09 AM
Uh, Ms. Kay, are you not aware of Ontario Bill 117 from December 2000?
Dan Brown wrote in the Ottawa Citizen at that time:
"It's called the "intervention order" and is being fast-tracked through the legislature. ..... this ultimate weapon has been developed is part of a promise from Attorney General Jim Flaherty......The new law gives special courts powers that appear to circumvent the Criminal Code and the Charter of Rights.
.....officially known as Domestic Violence Courts, these special courts have now been given the power to temporarily strip a man of all he owns without him even being present to defend himself......There is already a zero-tolerance policy regarding domestic disturbances/violence. A major problem is the 911 call. Dialling that number means a life is at risk. Feuding couples don't realize until it's too late that by dialling 911 they are in effect reporting an attempted murder. Police no longer separate the battling couple and tell them to cool off. They take one of them -- 99 per cent of the time it's the man -- to jail......The definition of violence is now so broad that a raised voice, if it causes fright, is abuse, which translates to violence.
.....He appears in front of a domestic court judge the next day. If he agrees to plead guilty, he can go home by promising to behave and to take a series of anger-management courses. If he refuses to plead, he faces lengthy delays in the criminal system, large legal bills, and he can't go home because a restraining order is part of the program.
Under Bill 117, while he's in jail overnight, his opponent (wife, ex-wife, girlfriend or date) can appear in front of a judge and ask for an intervention order. He can wake up owning nothing, with no place to go......Written into the scheme are ex parte applications. The alleged abuser doesn't have to be present when the order seizing his property is made. Application for an Intervention Order can be made by anyone in a one-to-one relationship, including dating.
Literally without knowing about it, it will be possible for a partner, almost 100 per cent of them men, to lose freedom and property. The intervention order includes an automatic restraining order. Any violation of an intervention order will be a criminal offence. It will take precedence over any acquittal, dismissal or withdrawal of a criminal charge, or any order under any statute, including the Divorce Act. Transference of property will include leased property, even if she is only a date, and is binding on the landlord. If rent is in arrears, the landlord must collect from him. She will have no liability."
And what does the Bill define as behaviour so egregious that it would warrant this outrageous sanction? It defines as 'abuse', "any series of acts which collectively causes fear for safety,", including anything such as "contacting, communicating with, observing or recording the person.".
And in what kind of intimate relationships? The Bill "more broadly define domestic relationships to include dating relationships and family members who reside together..."
That's right. You've been dating a while and she interprets some of your communications to cause fear for her safety - she can, ex-parte, overnight, have everything you own transferred to her.
Compared to the lunacy of Ontario, the French are amateurs.
by Rectificatif
Jan 06 2010
3:32 AM
Yeah and don't blame the French: it's all imported from North America.
Oh and Barbara, "Allô police!" is a Quebec expression, not heard anywhere in France. "Vache" means, not a bovine woman, but "unfair," or "ugly" when used as an adjective.
Oh France, where is thy lustre of yore.
by MikeMurphy
Jan 06 2010
4:43 AM
I did a little research on Bill 117 as last time I checked in 2008 it had not received Royal Assent even though it was passed in 2000. Many aspects of it have been incorporated in other acts and regulations including a zero tolerance policy by police which means in 99% of the cases the man is arrested. This is the info on its repeal:
Domestic Violence Protection Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, CHAPTER 33
Note: This Act was repealed on May 14, 2009. See: 2009, c. 11, ss. 21, 53 (1).
The link to this info is here:
www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/.../frame
For the record it was initially introduced by the current Federal Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, Red Tory and Feminist Sycophant when he was Ontario AG. For those who think this current federal government is right wing and the former Harris Ontario government was likewise this puts some doubt to that theory as the legislation was draconian and its inception had Marxist roots from an entrenched militant feminist bureaucracy in his then department (they still have undue influence of their political masters) and from other tax supported feminist groups, especially those feminist lawyers funded by the government and organized as law groups.
Flaherty, as do many men, take their marching orders from their wives. His wife recently ran for the Ontario PC leadership and thank goodness she lost.
by Outlaw_CA
Jan 06 2010
6:19 AM
First ban the Burka now this shit what else constipated French will do?
by Smokey4531
Jan 06 2010
1:21 PM
A little while ago I talked to a young lady from Germany she told me that the Turkish Muslims treated the German women, well, eh, like prostitutes or whores, she wants to live in Canada. France has even more Muslims in fact the highest percentage in Europe I believe, where the same is occurring there. Women are being harassed on their way to the super market, the corner store; everywhere they go, treated like trash for not wearing the hijab.
Meanwhile the vast majority of lawyers graduating out of university are now of the female gender. The men that graduate are every bit a Radical Marxist Feminist as their female cohorts.
As a remedy to these draconian laws that they propose to enact I recommend their incarceration, and then auctioning them off as slaves to the Muslims population in France. Then we could put a minaret at every university so the French populace can understand what discrimination is all about. Remember the Switzerland minaret problem.
The Irony is we don’t have to do any of this at all. We just have to wait fifteen years and all this will happen anyway.
So Canada, the U.S., and the U.K., freed France twice in two world wars; and they have regressed into a radical feminist oligarchy, where it is acceptable to enter into the marriages of the nation under the banner of ‘victimised women’ and ‘psychological abuse’. Why don’t they just give every male child a psychologist at birth to program him into their, ‘women are superior’, way of thinking. What a great way to find jobs for their bourgeoisie/dominant class, Marxist sisterhood.
Since we have lost thousands of lives defending France from leftist ideologues in the past so they could live in freedom, and since this time they have chosen to fall into a vacant pit of despair by ignoring their Christian ethics; we should allow the Muslims to overrun their culture and let them rot in their self defeating, economical greed driven ideology.
France can’t do a thing about the discrimination in the streets, but intends to enter the private homes and marriages of its citizens.
No more french-fries for me, freedom fries only.
University of Western Sydney academic Micheal Woods said yesterday that the statistics debunked the myth that fathers posed the greatest risk to their children.
