Star Chambers to give all of men's possessions to women, ex parte.
It is law in Canada, now. Coming to a country near you, next?
Feminist and family law injustices and oppression against heterosexual men and fathers is a worldwide phenomenon.

As we know, such legislation very much puts the whip in the hands of women (and is the main reason that feminists have seized on the DV issue - and a broad definition of DV, with "abusive behaviour" being almost anything that upsets a woman - real or perceived ('fear' is one cover word often used). And only women can successfully play the game; men and their complaints are not taken seriously.

----

Except from an article below: "Any man in my life is simply one phone call away from total destruction (when Bill 117 becomes law)," said Dori Gospordaric, co-founder of Second Spouses of Canada. "You have already provided protection for me. It's called the criminal justice system. Now you have provided for me the ultimate weapon. A phone call."
"Being mothers does not make us sacrosanct. It does not make us morally superior. There is no superiority of the uterus ... Funded women's groups claim to represent women. Which women? I am a woman and a mother and I don't care about the gender of my abuser, I want it to stop. You are funding women to abuse me."

She said she was speaking for tens of thousands of women who, as second wives, are guilty by association as public funding helps vilify and launch legal attacks on ex-husbands. (The Ottawa Citizen 4 November 2000 ) .

----------------------------

The Ottawa Citizen
20 December 2000

Bill 117 guts men's rights

By Dave Brown Just in time for Christmas, Ontario Attorney General Jim Flaherty has presented a gift-wrapped monster called Bill 117 that effectively removes the Charter rights of half the population - the male half. Gone with the flick of a quick vote are fundamental procedural rights and the presumption of innocence. The vote was held in the Ontario legislature late Monday. The new law domestic violence." Mr. Flaherty certainly is doing something. But it's wrong, says Mr. Martin:

"This bill is classic police-state legislation and violates just about every constitutional principle that anyone with even a minimal familiarity with our Constitution might think of."

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.

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.

Proponents of the intervention order say he can apply to a judge to get his property back within 30 days. What they don't point out is that the other party has the legal right to be there. If she doesn't show up, the process is stalled. A court order can be issued, but family courts have a poor record of enforcing orders against women.

Senator Anne Cools, a founder of the women's shelter movement and now one of its most vocal opponents, appeared at Bill 117 hearings, appealing for reason. "This is a human problem, not a gender problem. Both sexes are capable of violence. ... The issue has been falsely framed." This new approach, she said, was "a heart of darkness."

From my perspective as a reporter and a man, it's social vandalism.

--

Dave Brown is the Citizen's senior editor.
Send email to dbrown@thecitizen.southam.ca

------------------------------------------

*OFFICIAL ONTARIO GOVERNMENT PRESS RELEASE:
Attention News Editors:
Fact Sheet - Domestic Violence Protection Act - An Act to Better Protect
Victims of Domestic Violence
TORONTO, 19 December 2000 /CNW/

The Domestic Violence Protection Act replaces restraining orders with domestic violence intervention orders. These court orders prohibit contact between the alleged abusers and victims of domestic violence and provide additional ways to help keep victims safe. The Ontario government's reform of restraining orders consists of the Domestic Violence Protection Act and changes to practices to ensure that intervention orders are issued and enforced in an effective, consistent and timely manner across the province. The reform is consistent with recommendations of the Joint Committee on Domestic Violence and with the government's Blueprint and Throne Speech commitment to protect victims and hold offenders accountable. The Domestic Violence Protection Act was passed by the Ontario legislature on December 18, 2000.

Highlights of the Domestic Violence Protection Act

A Clear Definition

The Act comprehensively defines domestic violence to mean:

• an assault that consists of the intentional application of force that causes the applicant to fear for his or her safety. This does not include acting in self-defence;
• an intentional or reckless act or omission that causes bodily harm or damage to property;
• an act or omission or threatened act or omission that causes the applicant to fear for his or her safety;
• forced physical confinement;
• a series of acts which collectively causes the applicant to fear for his or her safety, including following, contacting, communicating with, observing or recording any person;
• sexual assault, sexual exploitation or sexual molestation or threat of these actions.

• spouses or former spouses, married and common law;
• people who are or have been in a dating relationship; other people who have resided or are residing together in a spousal or intimate relationship for less than three years;
• relatives who are currently living together, such as elderly parents and their adult children; and
• same sex partners or former partners.

• that the alleged abuser should not communicate directly or indirectly with the victim or other specified people;
• the specific distance an alleged abuser can be from the victim or particular places.

• requiring the alleged abuser to vacate the shared residence;
• requiring that police are present while the alleged abuser removes personal possessions;
• requiring the alleged abuser to give up possession of firearms and weapons that have been used or threatened to be used to commit domestic violence;
• ordering counselling for the alleged abuser to prevent further violence;
• recommending counselling for children at the alleged abuser's expense to help them overcome the effects of exposure to the violence;
• granting exclusive possession of the residence to the victim, or exclusive use of certain property such as credit cards and bank accounts;
• ordering compensation for damage or losses suffered.

• in the case of emergency orders, a judge or justice of the peace will have to be satisfied that the matter must be dealt with urgently;
• either party will have 30 days to request a court hearing to change or terminate an emergency order and the hearing must be held within 14 days of a request;
• either party, at any time, will be able to ask a judge to consider changing or terminating a non-emergency court order;
• if an applicant were seeking exclusive possession of the residence, he or she would have to give notice to the other party;
• conditions in intervention orders will not affect the title or ownership of the residence shared by the parties; and
• those who make false claims about domestic violence or commit perjury or public mischief could be prosecuted under the Criminal Code.

• Simplifying and speeding up the court process for issuing intervention orders, including the mandatory use by the courts of standard form orders that will clearly set out conditions for the alleged abuser. This will result in faster notification of alleged abusers of the orders and posting of improved information on CPIC (the Canada-wide computerized police database).
• Expanding the number of spaces available in Partner Assault Response Programs (formerly batterers' programs) to help prevent further domestic violence. Counselling can be ordered as a condition of an intervention order.
• Continuing education and training on the new legislation for all those involved in the justice system.

Top of Page

Visit the DADs Australia Website