Thanks to J for this BBC report on the ‘consultation exercise’ which we always said was a charade – on the Home Office’s plans to extend the law on domestic abuse. We publicly challenged Theresa May, Home Secretary, over the exercise, and sent a 150+ page report in response to the consultation.
The new law will be used overwhelmingly in practice by malicious wives to assault their husbands. The Home Office report is proof – as if it were needed – of the influence of radical feminist organisations including Women’s Aid on a major government department. Whilst in opposition, Theresa May was infamously photographed wearing a Fawcett Society T-shirt bearing the logo, ‘This is what a feminist looks like’. She must be very proud of her work today, hammering yet another nail into the coffin of the institution of marriage.
Can anyone still seriously believe that rational arguments are going to stop the state’s assaults on men and boys, marriage, and the nuclear family? For J4MB and our supporters, the power of rational arguments lies in their power to raise public consciousness to the point that the major political parties can be challenged effectively by voters in general elections.
Justice for Men & Boys 
This might be the worst and and most egregiously pernicious legislation ever proposed.
As if the divorce laws were not bad enough, this will allow the policeman to walk into your life, your home, your marriage, your bedroom and your business, and damage them, or take them away – by law. And with him will come all the parafinalia and appurtenances of the state.
Not even under Rusian communism were such circumstances obtaining
Since our political power elite are not literally stupid, the only interpretation of this is that it is deliberate and intentional.
They mean to chain men like dogs to a tree.
Please do not imagine that this legislation, once enacted, will be repealed either. The legal procedure is like a ratchet – it only moves in one direction. They like to hang on the powers they already have.
The main suggestion I can offer for now, is please don’t vote for any of the ‘main’ parties in the coming general election, they all have the same agenda. Alternatives are available, please consider using them.
Voting j4mb would be a good start.
LikeLike
DV can be a life threatening and mentally debilitating abuse of a person so it clearly needs to punished as well as prevented if possible. But any law to deal with it should not be used to abuse the legal and human rights of any gender over another.
Having read the Home Office report that the definition of DV to be considered is the feminist discredited Duluth model, I have little confidence a valid and fair law will be brought before Parliament. This model is known to be completely factually wrong, especially when applied to the majority of male DV perpetrators. It actually applies more to female DV perpetrators. They are more likely to use the abusive control and coercive behaviour in a relationship. However it is clear the law may actually support this behaviour and use it as a legal stick to further hit male victims with, since it considers it a male perpetrator behaviour by the theory. One charity quoted in the report was clear it wanted a law biased in favour of BME women.
The law is clearly intended to make the police into a private personal body guard and servant for women with a grudge to abuse their partners. Police resources would be forced to prioritise a DV complaint/call above everything else. This would be a totally unaffordable and unworkable demand. The whole idea is a direct lift from the “Istanbul Convention” . If implemented in the indicated form it could lead to serious societal problems and the total distrust of the police and women by many innocent men. Ironically if implemented fairly in a gender neutral arrest policy, but still wrongly in a Duluth form, it would cause more women to be prosecuted.
The other worrying purpose put forward was to introduce higher penalties for behaviour already covered by general assault and harassment laws. Why should years of carefully consideration of current penalties be brushed aside. This seems to be a call for emotional revenge based sentences not about justice.
Also the (feminist) charities want ring fences resources for DV support agencies to back up the new law. We already know male victims get virtually none of these government resources so who is going to benefit from all this extra money?
So basically I see this as totally flawed process that will do nothing to help current and future victims of any gender. It will just consolidate the existing failing feminist DV infrastructure, cause more relationships to fail, and waste billions of pounds at the same time.
Mike please send your report to all MPs email boxes asap, if you have not done so already. At least there is three politicians campaigning at the next general election on this issue that want to help all victims of DV.
LikeLike
The current Government and Labour both support the Violence Against Women and Girls strategy, itself sexist as most of it is as applicable to males as females, this strategy will push the application of the proposed law, however gender neutral in language, into a feminist model of automatic assumption of male culpability. Sociologically it is the case that the female partner is more likely to use emotionally coercive behaviours and be in control of family finances, and in particular expenditure. Of course even the courts have proved ineffective in preventing the abuse of children and fathers parents through thwarting “access” and acluve alienation. In theory such a law should be helpful to men, yet the VAWG strategy will ensure that government agencies do nothing to inform men or children of their rights.
LikeLike