In January, President
George W. Bush signed the reauthorization
of the Violence Against Women Act
without public debate, even though
evidence has surfaced that Congress
should have examined it before the
law was extended.
The act, which costs nearly $1 billion
per year, is one of the major ways
former President Bill Clinton bought
the support of radical feminists.
Why Republicans passed this bill is
a mystery. It's unlikely that the
feminists who will spend all that
money will ever vote Republican. Passage
of the Violence Against Women Act
was a major priority of the American
Bar Association for whose members
it is a cash cow.
More than 300 courts have implemented
specialized docket processes to address
the cases stemming from the act, more
than 1 million women have obtained
protection orders from the courts,
and more than 660 new state laws pertaining
to domestic violence have been passed,
all of which produce profitable work
for lawyers.
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.
Voluminous documentation to dispel
the feminist myths that created and
have perpetuated the act are spelled
out in seven reports just issued by
an organization called Respecting
Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting,
or RADAR, and in an 80-page report
called "Family Violence in America"
published by the American Coalition
for Fathers & Children.
For example, it is a shocker to discover
that acts don't have to be violent
to be punished under the definition
of domestic violence. Name-calling,
put-downs, shouting, negative looks
or gestures, ignoring opinions or
constant criticizing can all be legally
labeled domestic violence.
The ABA report states flatly: "Domestic
violence does not necessarily involve
physical violence." The feminists'
mantra is, "You don't have to
be beaten to be abused." 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.
Specifically, the accused is not innocent
until proven guilty but is presumed
guilty, and he doesn't have to be
convicted "beyond a reasonable
doubt." Due process rights, such
as trial by jury and the right of
free counsel to poor defendants, are
regularly denied, and false accusations
are not covered by perjury law. The
act provides funding for legal representation
for accusers but not for defendants.
Those concerned about judicial activism,
i.e., judges legislating from the
bench, could observe judges doing
this every day in domestic violence
cases.
Every time a judge issues a restraining
order, the judge creates new crimes
for which an individual can be arrested
and jailed without trial for doing
what no statute prohibits and what
anyone else may lawfully do.
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. Some of these injustices
result from overzealous law enforcement
officials (sometimes running for office),
and some from timid judges who grant
restraining orders and deny due process
to defendants for fear of being blamed
for subsequent violence.
Most of this, however, is the result
of feminist activism and the taxpayer
money given them by Congress. The
ease and speed with which women can
get restraining orders without fear
of punishment for lying indicates
that the dynamic driving domestic-violence
accusations is child custody rather
than violence. Restraining orders
don't prevent violence, but they do
have the immediate effect of separating
fathers from their children and imprisoning
fathers for acts that are perfectly
legal if done by anyone else (such
as attending a public event at which
his child is performing).
The restraining order issued against
TV talk show host David Letterman,
allegedly to protect a woman who claimed
he was harassing her through his TV
broadcasts, is a good example of how
easy it is to get a court order based
on false allegations. Another ridiculous
restraining order was issued against
celebutante Paris Hilton to protect
a man she had bad-mouthed.
Violence Against Women Act money is
used by anti-male feminists to train
judges, prosecutors and police in
the feminist myths that domestic violence
is a contagious epidemic, and that
men are naturally batterers and women
are naturally victims. Feminists lobby
state legislators to pass must-arrest
and must-prosecute laws even when
police don't observe any crime and
can't produce a witness to testify
about an alleged crime.
Assault and battery are crimes in
every state and should be prosecuted.
But people so accused should be entitled
to their constitutional rights. After
all, is this America?
- end msg - |