Police are part of systemic gender discrimination
king.arthur
By Paul St. Pierre
November 15th 2001
Prince George Free Press
In the United States, whose constitution asserts that all men are created
equal, the Supreme Court asserted for many generations that the evidence of
one white man was worth the evidence of two black men. It was shameful but
it was the law of the land, as interpreted by the highest court in the land.
For more than a century it guided American jurisprudence and only a few
decades ago did that same Supreme Court repent and become active in
promoting genuine equality among all citizens.
It's all past history now. Why should someone who is not an American rake
up the fires of old tyranny in this year 2001?
For a Canadian, there's good reason because, while the American courts have
become more enlightened, the rulers of Canada are darkening the face of our
justice system by proceeding in exactly the opposite direction. They are
actively promoting inequality among the people of this democracy.
A recent example is one documented in a release from the Federal and
Provincial Law Reform Commissions of Canada on its website
www.canlaw.com/reform/reform.htm.
http://www.canlaw.com/cgibin/download/my_downloader.cgi
An article by J. Kirby Inwood deals with gender discrimination against men
in domestic disputes. An Ontario Attorney General directive to police, he
says, "may well provide the grounds for a charter application for a stay of
domestic assault charges against men on the grounds of systemic gender
discrimination."
The directive in the Ontario Policing Standards Manual, which the lawyer
quotes in full, instructs the police that in a domestic violence dispute,
the evidence of the woman must be given more weight than the evidence of the
man, that they are not equal in the eyes of the law, but she has more
equality than he has.
"The police in Ontario (and many other jurisdictions) are required to
always arrest the man, not the woman, even when the officer does not believe
there is a likelihood of a conviction." (Emphasis added.) Mr. Inwood goes on
to say, "The deck is stacked against all male defendants and there is a
clear presumption of guilt."
British Columbia is one of the jurisdictions where police operate under a
similar directive from the Attorney General's office, requiring them to be
unfair when investigating domestic violence cases.
Here is the testimony of a senior, experienced, serving Royal Canadian
Mounted Police officer, whose anonymity is going to be preserved here. He
has mortgage payments to make.
False charges by women, he reports, are by no means uncommon. Frequently
they are employed by wives who want to retain custody of their children
during divorce or separation proceedings.
If there are charges of violence against the man, courts will almost always
accede to a request denying him access to his children on a temporary basis.
Court matters proceeding at the rate they do, the temporary is likely to
prove permanent, even if the violence charge is never proven or is found
totally spurious.
Other women, says the officer, sometimes act out of spite. It's an offence
to falsely lead police into laying criminal charges, it's called public
mischief. It is invoked about as often as the Witchcraft Act.
A hypothetical case was put to this officer, a not unusual case of an angry
wife who seeks to harm her husband with a false charge of assault and is
willing to scratch her arm or raise a blue mark on her forearm by thumping a
doorjamb.
"If there is the slightest mark on her, even a tiny bruise that she could
get by bumping against a cupboard door, we will promptly arrest him, bring
him to the detachment office, fingerprint him and probably charge him."
And what if he charges her with assault because of a scratch on his face?
It doesn't work in reverse, the officer reports.
What can a man do to protest himself from false charges?
"Frankly, in the present climate, not much. If he can foresee a false
charge coming his way, my advice would be for him to put his hand in his
pockets at the first sharp word, walk out, go to a friend's house and tell
them that he came there because he expects a false charge of assault by his
wife. He can say, "Look at me. I'm not drunk. My hands are clean." That
might help but remember, we have our instructions."
As for the suggestion that in the British tradition, a policeman has
inherent jurisdiction and cannot be compelled to distort his judgment or act
against his convictions, this was the officer's answer:
Try telling that to a young constable who's got mortgage payments to meet
and children with teeth needing expensive dental work." Thus does the police
state grow stronger and democracy weaker in Canada.
We are, in a small way, just as wickedly unjust as that old, bad American
Supreme Court.
king.arthur
Generals office that violated the Charter of Rights of men. The Liberals in
BC still keep these policies going. I believe that Charter Challenges on the
Government of BC is seriously being look at. If Campbell the Leader of the
Liberals refuses to make those changes, his days of being a leader of a
political party will be soon over.
ATTACHED IS AN EXACT COPY OF THE CURRENT ONTARIO POLICING STANDARDS MANUAL
which outlines the mandatory police procedures when investigating and
following up on so called domestic violence calls. The other provinces have
similar biased and anti-male manuals and training procedures in place.
This manual may well provide grounds for a Charter application for a stay of
a (domestic) assault charges against men on the grounds of systemic gender
discrimination. The police of Ontario (and many other jurisdictions) are
required to always arrest the man, not the woman, even when the officer does
not believe there is a likelihood of conviction. I could give you the
precise location of these rules within this document, but it would be better
if you read this draconian section of the manual yourself.
I would further suggest that the use of this manual, coupled with special
courts which exist only to prosecute men accused by their spouses of wife
assault compound the anti male bias and discrimination practiced by the
police and the courts.
When you factor in the huge numbers of women who make false wife assault
allegations and are taught to do so by the media, the feminist help lines
and groups and by many lawyers, we have a serious problem. The deck is
stacked against all male defendants and there is a clear presumption of
guilt.
There is one other factor to consider when defending wife assault cases.
Women know that the minute a man is arrested, he will be put under some type
of bail and or restraining order which prevents him from contacting his
kids. Women are using false allegations to gain custody. They know that most
judges will not change interim custody arrangements a year or two down the
line after the wife has filed false charges and successfully pre-empted
interim custody. In fact their really is no such thing as interim custody
since possession is all that matters.
If you plan on bringing an application citing this manual, please let us
know.
Regards
J Kirby Inwood J...@canlaw.com
Canadian Lawyer
Index
1604-60 Pleasant
Blvd
+Fax: (416) 923-8458
Toronto ON M4T 1K1
IF YOU WANT YOUR OWN ORIGINAL COPY OF THIS MANUAL. . .
This copy was provided free of charge to the Canadian Lawyer Index by the:
Policing Services Division of the
Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services 12th
Floor 25 Grosvenor Street
Toronto On M7A 2H3
Vox: (416) 314-3000
Fax: (416) 314-3092
Anyone may order their own copy from the above address if so desired. Please
note that the page numbers in this copy have been reset and do not
correspond to the page numbering in the original There are 19 page in the
original document .
Rationale
To effectively combat the serious and prevalent problem of wife assault
within our communities, coordinated and comprehensive efforts on the part of
police and community partners must be undertaken. Police, as the criminal
justice system's front-line workers and the agency which may have initial
contact with a victim, have the responsibility of responding competently to
the immediate and longer-term needs of wife assault victims while indicating
to offenders that society does not tolerate violence. One of the dynamics of
wife assault is that the severity and frequency of the violence is likely to
escalate over time and, in many cases, will lead to the death of the victim.
In 1991, 64 percent of all female homicide victims were killed by their male
partners and in 1992, 97 percent of all domestic homicide victims were
female (Homicide Survey, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. October
1992 and July 1993).
Women who declare their intentions to sever the relationship with their
partner may be more at risk of physical violence as this is an extremely
crucial and dangerous time. Research on the murder of women by their male
partners has indicated that the male partner's anger or rage over the actual
or impending estrangement from his partner typified 45 percent of the cases
where a motive could be established ("Woman Killing: Intimate Femicide
in Ontario 1974-1990", April 1992). Thus, the need for a coordinated
community response, in order to support and protect a woman once she makes
the decision to leave an abusive situation or terminate the relationship
with her partner, is clear. Typically, victims of wife assault who seek
assistance from the criminal justice system have experienced an extensive
history of abuse before they call the police. As well, a significant number
of stalking incidents involve female victims who are stalked by their
current or former male partners.
Without appropriate intervention, the cycle of violence is inevitably
perpetuated. One of the most salient characteristics of this type of
violence is that it is transferred from one generation to the next. It has
been estimated that one out of two men who assault their wives were abused
as children or witnessed domestic violence, and that one third of abused
women either witnessed their mothers being assaulted or were abused as
children.
Police must be cognizant that the nature and seriousness of crimes
committed between family or household members are not mitigated because of
the relationships or living arrangements of those involved, and that a
critical difference exists between the police response to family
disturbances where no physical violence has occurred and wife assault.
Although the application of crisis intervention skills is required in both
cases, the primary purpose of mediation to help resolve family problems is
to prevent violence and therefore make arrest unnecessary. However, wife
assault is foremost a crime which must be resolutely investigated and
prosecuted.
Through the implementation of a policy and community protocol which
encourage an effective and co-operative response to wife assault, the
incidence and severity of wife assault may be reduced, victims may be better
protected and supported through a combination of law enforcement and
community services, and more appropriate judicial responses may be
realized. Although wife assault is a significant component of the broader
domestic violence problem and warrants focused attention and action, it may
be addressed in a more constructive way in concert with strategies to
address other domestic violence issues including child and elder abuse.
Police service policies and procedures respecting response to wife assault
may also promote officer safety by ensuring that officers are fully prepared
to respond to and competently deal with wife assault calls for service.
Prescribed Standards
Not Developed
Guidelines
0217.01 The Governing Authority shall ensure that the police service has a
policy in place which aims to reduce violence against women by encouraging
an effective and consistent response to wife assault calls and by
establishing a community protocol which takes a collaborative approach
utilizing all available community resources. This policy should reflect the
following:
a. All members of the police service should be aware of components of
wife assault which include: "physical assault, sexual assault, psychological
abuse, stalking, threats of physical assault, directed by a man toward his
female partner with whom there is or has been a relationship, whether or not
the relationship has received legal sanction as a marriage and includes
assaults in or outside the home (it does not matter that at the time of the
assault the man did not live with the woman)."
b .Police shall lay charges in all incidents of wife assault where there
are reasonable grounds* to do so. Offences for which charges may be laid
relating to wife assault include, but are not limited to:
· assault,
· sexual assault,
· assault with weapon or causing bodily harm,
· aggravated assault,
· uttering threats,
· causing bodily harm with intent,
· criminal harassment (stalking),
· intimidation,
· kidnapping (forcible confinement),
· mischief, and
· violation of a Family Court Order, bail condition, or
recognizance to keep the peace.
c. Mechanisms are in place to ensure broad community involvement in:
· the establishment of police service priorities in the area of wife
assault and other forms of violence against women,
· the creation of working groups to develop methods of
improving the safety of women in the community,
· the development of crime prevention initiatives,
· the assessment of police training and the
identification of training requirements, and
* Note: Prior to December 1988, referred to as "reasonable and probable
grounds" in the Criminal Code.
· the regular review of police service delivery
regarding wife assault including an assessment from the perspective of
victims and relevant service agencies.
d. An individual or individuals are appointed whose responsibilities
include: monitoring responses toincidents of wife assault and ensuring
consistency with police service policy, networking and liaising with
community representatives, and providing education and training to police
service members. The police service should consider the appointment of a
Wife Assault Coordinator who would be responsible for the above functions.
e. A policy is in place for addressing incidents in which a police
officer is charged with an offence related to wife assault.
0217.02 The Chief of Police/Commissioner of the O.P.P. willensure that
procedures are in place to promote an effective and consistent response to
incidents of wife assault. Procedures should include the following:
0217.03 COMMUNICATIONS
a. Police will respond to all calls relating to wife assault including
those that are received from third parties who may or may not identify
themselves. Police will also respond if the call is disconnected or the
caller indicates that the police are no longer required. Wife assault calls
should receive the same priority as any other life threatening call. Police
services may wish to consider the employment of call display equipment.
b. Communications supervisors should ensure that, in addition to
information that is ordinarily received by the dispatcher, police officers
responding to a wife assault call are provided by the dispatcher or through
an automated occurrence reporting system with information, if readily
available, detailing:
i. information about the suspect (e.g., relation to victim, whereabouts,
description);
ii. whether the suspect is under the influence of drugs or alcohol;
iii. whether there are known to be firearms in the residence;
iv. whether children are present in the household and their status;
v. whether anyone in the household has been issued or refused a firearms
acquisition certificate;
vi. whether there has been one or more previous wife assault calls to the
address, the nature of previous incidents and whether weapons have been
involved; and
vii. whether a current Peace Bond/Restraining Order exists against the
suspect and the source of this information.
c. Future system development efforts should attempt to include steps to
render the above information available to officers en route to domestic
calls.
0217.04 RESPONDING OFFICER PROCEDURES
a. When a call is received and the suspect has threatened violence and if
there is reason to believe the suspect intends to go to the victim's
location, or when violence has occurred, police will respond to the scene
whether the suspect is present or not.
b. When a call regarding wife assault is received, two officers should be
assigned to respond whenever possible.
c. Upon arrival at the scene, if an assault has occurred, officers should
assist the victim in obtaining medical attention. Given that assault victims
frequentlysustain internal or external injuries which are not visible,
officers must ask the victim whether she has sustained injuries and note her
response. Officers should also note their own personal observation of
injuries.
d. In wife assault cases, officers are responsible for gathering and
documenting evidence in the standard manner for any criminal investigation.
Wheneverpossible, evidence at a wife assault incident should be
photographed, ensuring that victim injuries and the crime scene are
adequately documented. If the victim received soft tissue trauma, officers
should recontact the victim within 48 hours to photograph the injuries as
they will likely be more visible at that time. In a situation where the
victim's injuries are hidden by clothing, a female officer or victim
advocate should be accessed to photograph these injuries in a private
setting.
e. Officers should interview all parties separately (victim, suspect and
witnesses) while ensuring officer and victim safety. When interpreter
services are required,they should be provided by a source outside the
immediate family unless it is impractical to wait for an interpreter having
regard to the circumstances.
f. Officers should routinely ask the victim direct questions about the
history of abuse (whether previously reported to the police or not), whether
her life was threatened, whether there are any firearms in the household, or
whether the suspect has access to firearms.
g. After a victim has been asked to describe the incident, officers
should request that the victim review andinitial the officer's record of her
statement, or sign any statement that she has provided to the police.
h. When there are reasonable grounds, police will laycharges in all
incidents of wife assault. In determining reasonable grounds, officers
should consider all relevant factors which include, but are not limited to:
verbal statements from the victim, physical injuries or other physical
evidence of an offence. The absence of a statement may not preclude the
laying of a charge.
i. In formulating a decision whether to lay charges,officers should not
be influenced by any of the following factors.
I. marital status of the parties;
ii. disposition of previous police calls involving the same victim and
suspect;
iii. the victim's unwillingness to attend court proceedings or the officer's
belief that the victim will not attend;
iv. likelihood of obtaining a conviction in court;
v. verbal assurances by either party that the violence will cease;
vi. denial by either party that the violence occurred when evidence exists
to the contrary;
vii. the officer's concern about reprisals against the victim by the
suspect; or
viii. race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status or occupation of the victim
and suspect.
j. In accordance with Sections 495 and 497 of the Criminal Code, when a
charge is warranted, officersshould arrest the accused if they believe on
reasonable grounds that it is in the public interest to do so having regard
to all the circumstances.
k. If the suspect is not present when police arrive, officers will
determine all pertinent information to the incident including the safety
threat to the victim, public and police. If reasonable grounds exist to lay
a charge, a warrant for the accused should be obtained as soon as
practicable and entered on C.P.I.C, and every effortshould be made to locate
and apprehend the suspect.
1. The victim should be fully informed of the nature and proceedings
against the accused that will follow hischarge and/or arrest. In
communities with Victim Services and/or Victim/Witness Assistance Programs,
this information may be provided through these agencies.
m. Officers shall file a detailed police occurrence reportwhen a charge is
laid or an arrest is effected and should inform the parties involved that a
report will be completed and kept on file. The occurrence report must be
submitted in order to obtain data for the Monthly Spousal Assault Summary
(OPC Form #29).
n. Prior to leaving the scene, officers shall provide theparties with the
officers' names and badge numbers aswell as the incident number, if
possible.
o. Officers should explain to both parties that it is theirduty to lay a
charge when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has
beencommitted. It should be made clear to both parties that neither they,
nor the police, can have a charge withdrawn and that only the Crown Attorney
can withdraw a charge.
p. Section 524 (2)(a) of the Criminal Code provides power of arrest
without a warrant for a peace officer who believes on reasonable grounds
that an accused has contravened or is about to contravene any summons,
appearance notice, promise to appear, undertaking or recognizance.
q. Officers should consider whether offences other than Criminal Code
offences have been committed whichwould require charges to be laid whether
or not the complainant's initial complaint referred to other offences. These
include:
i. Contravention of a valid order pursuant to Section 24 of the Family Law
Act, (possession of the matrimonial home). If the officer(s) determine on
reasonable grounds that such an order exists and that the suspect is in
contravention of that order, then he may be arrested and charged, whether or
not the complainant consented to the presence of the suspect. If the
complainant is unable to produce a copy of the court order, then the
officer(s) should verify where possible, the existence of the order with the
court office, C.P.I.C., lawyers representing one or both parties, previous
investigating officer(s), other agencies, support groups or shelters which
may have a copy of the court order.
ii. Contravention of a valid order pursuant to Section 46 of the Family Law
Act (molesting, annoying or harassing); or pursuant to Section 35 of the
Children's Law Reform Act (order restraining harassment). If the
officer(s)determine on reasonable grounds that such an order exists and that
the suspect is in contravention of that order, then he may be arrested and
charged, whether or not the complainant consented to the presence of the
suspect. If the complainant is unable to produce a copy of the court
order, then the officer(s) should, where possible, check with the court
office, C.P.I.C., lawyers representing one or both parties, previous
investigating officer(s), other agencies, support groups or shelters which
may have a copy of the court order.
r. If the victim expresses concern about her safety and security and no
charge has been laid pursuant to the Criminal Code or the Family Law Act,
then officersshould: inform her of legal options which may be available
(e.g., obtaining a Recognizance to Keep the Peace, a Restraining Order,
Exclusive Possession Order) and advise her to seek legal advice as to which
option to pursue. Officers may also advise her of provisions of the
Trespass to Property Act, if applicable.
s.In the event that an accused requests counter-charges be laid against the
victim, officers should assess whether reasonable grounds exist to do so.
If reasonable grounds do not exist, officers should advise the accused that
he may seek a Justice of the Peace to lay an Information. If reasonable
grounds do not exist to lay a charge against the accused, officers may also
advise the victim to lay an Information before a Justice of the Peace.
t. As per Sections 103(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code, police officers may
seize firearms, other offensive weapons, firearm acquisition certificates,
etc., in the interests of the safety of the individual or any other person.
u. In cases where the victim has disabilities, officers should assist the
woman, where possible, in the following manner:
i. In cases where there is a communication barrier as a result of physical
or developmental disability, officers will make all reasonable efforts to
contact appropriate community resources to render assistance,
including suitable transportation, care and shelter.
ii. If the accused is the victim's sole care giver, and his arrest and
removal from the residence will, as a direct result, put the victim at
physical risk, officers will contact, on advice of the victim or her
advocate, appropriate resources such as family and/or community services for
her care.
v. If immigration status is an issue or language is a barrier, officers
should employ the following procedures:
i. If necessary, officers will make every reasonable effort to obtain the
services of an interpreter where one is available.
ii. Officers should explain to the victim, through the interpreter if
required, that, provided she is legally in the country, her status in Canada
will not change as a result of her participation in the judicial process,
either as a victim of an offence or as a result of charges laid against the
accused.
iii. Officers should advise the victim to get independent legal advice as to
her immigration status in Canada.
iv. In cases where an immigrant woman who been assaulted feels that a
partner has the power to seize her identification papers and deport her,
officers should accompany the woman when collecting from her residence, her
identification papers, including landedimmigrant records, her birth
certificate, passport, health card and Social Insurance Number card. Should
the identification papers be lost or destroyed, officers should inform her
that these documents can be replaced upon application to the appropriate
agencies.
w. When children are present, officers will ensure that they are not
placed at risk. Obligations under legislation must be met, including the
Child and Family Services Act, which requires police officers to act in
accordance with the statute when they believe that a child is or may be in
need of protection.
0217.05 VICTIM ASSISTANCE
a. Officers should remain at the scene until they are satisfied that
there is no further immediate threat to the victim.
b. If requested, officers should attend the residence to ensure peaceful
entry when the victim returns to take possession of personal belongings and
when concerns for safety exist because of the presence of the accused in the
residence. When peaceful entry of the residence cannot be achieved, or the
removal of certain propertyis contested by either party, officers will
advise the parties of the necessity to seek a civil remedy.c. In the
interests of officer and victim safety, and in ensuring that police officers
remain as impartial observers (i.e., to prevent a breach of the peace),
officers should not assist the victim in the physical removal of personal
belongings when accompanying her to the residence but should suggest that
the victim elicit the assistance of a friend, advocate, etc.
d. In addition to informing the victim of possible legal remedies and
other options which may be available to her, officers should, at all times,
have access toinformation regarding relevant community/social service
agencies (e.g..., shelters, Victim Services, Legal Aid, etc.), including
those with interpreter services, accompanied by addresses and telephone
numbers in order to provide immediate referrals as needed. Officers may
obtain this information via dispatch or from a general listing of agencies
which officers should have available when responding to wife assault
incidents.
e. Officers should arrange for transportation to a shelter or safe place
if necessary. The location shall remain confidential unless disclosure is
authorized by a Crown Attorney.
f. Police services should ensure that crucial information about a wife
assault case is provided to the victim or that she is advised of how to
access the Victim/Witness Assistance Program. For example:
i. The victim should be provided with information concerning the status of
her case.
ii. If bail is granted, the victim must be informed of any conditions of
release and provided a copy thereof, if possible.
iii. Where possible, police should make reasonable efforts to provide the
victim with appropriate information including referrals for assistance in
adopting a safety plan, following the release of the offender on bail or
after incarceration.
g. The victim should be invited to fill out a Victim Impact Statement.
0217.06 POST-ARREST PROCEDURES
a. When the accused has been arrested as a result of an investigation into
a complaint of wife assault, the officer in charge should detain him in
custody if, pursuant to Section 498 of the Criminal Code, the officer
believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary in the public interest,
having regard to all the circumstances.
b. In determining whether it is in the public interest to detain or
release the accused, the officer in charge should consider the following
factors:
i. the seriousness of the crime including the injuries to the victim;
ii. the use of or threat to use weapons in the commission of the offence;
iii. past history of violence;
iv. degree of intoxication or apparent substance abuse by the accused;
v. attitude of the accused including threats of further violence; and
vi. other factors that the officers from their observations at the scene
believe are important in the exercise of their discretion.
c. Where criminal charges have been laid as a result of an investigation
into a complaint of wife assault, officers should consider opposing bail if
circumstances warrant. In accordance with Section 515(10) of the Criminal
Code, the detention of an accused is justified when detention is necessary
for the protection or safety of the public having regard to all the
circumstances.
d. When the accused is brought before a Justice, in accordance with Section
515, the officer should consider recommending conditions for release where
warranted. The victim should be invited to assist the officer(s) in
determining the extent and type of conditions of release that will be
requested at the bail (show cause) hearing.
e.Charged persons and conditions of release may be entered on the C.P.I.C.
system according to the system's policy.
f. Platoon or shift supervisors, or the individual(s) appointed as per (d)
of the first section of this standard, should regularly review occurrence
reports and follow-up with officers who have not laid a charge to determine
the reason. When necessary, police officers should be reminded of the wife
assault policy and procedures and their duty to lay appropriate charges.
0217.07 TRAINING
a. The police service should conduct or make available to their members
(including communications personnel) training programs on wife assault
prevention. Consideration may be given to using front linecommunity
specialists in delivering this training. The programs should include:
i. Issues relating to wife assault which include, but are not limited to,
the nature of power and control in abusive relationships, the extent of the
effects of physical assault and psychological abuse on women, and common
myths associated with wife assault including reasons why women stay in
abusive relationships.
ii. Legislation related to wife assault including relevant provisions of
the Criminal Code, Family Law Act, Children's Law Reform Act, and Child and
Family Services Act.
iii. Issues relating to sensitivity towards Aboriginal, racial minority
and non-English speaking women, and women with disabilities.
iv. Orders, procedures and community protocols within the police service on
responding to wife assault occurrences.
b. Officers should be appropriately trained on the firearm provisions of
the Criminal Code, including: Sections 100(4) (prohibition order), and
103( 1)(2) (seizure).
c. Officers should be aware that the provisions of Subsection 515(4.1) of
the Criminal Code allow a justice to include as a condition of a release
order that the accused be prohibited from possessing any firearm, ammunition
or explosive substance for a specified time or that the accused surrender
any Firearms Acquisition Certificate (F.A.C.) that he possesses. Section
810(3.1) also allows a Justice to include as a condition of the recognizance
that the defendant be prohibited from possessing any firearm, ammunition or
explosive substance for any period of time specified in the recognizance and
that the defendant surrender any F.A.C. he possesses.
d. Individuals responsible for processing Firearms Acquisition
Certificates should refuse to issue them to individuals who have had a
history of behaviour that included violence or threatened or attempted
violence against any person within the five-year period prior to the date of
the application as per Section 106(4) of the Criminal Code, and should act
in accordance with C.P.I.C.policy with respect to entering F.A.C. refusals
on the C.P.I.C. system.
king.arthur
"Karl Pollak" <ka...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:3c0b3642....@news.pacificcoast.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> "king.arthur" <king....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A recent example is one documented in a release from the Federal and
> >Provincial Law Reform Commissions of Canada on its website
> >www.canlaw.com/reform/reform.htm.
> >
> >http://www.canlaw.com/cgibin/download/my_downloader.cgi
> >
> > An article by J. Kirby Inwood deals with gender discrimination against
men
> >in domestic disputes.
>
> necessary to defend that despicable piece of trash.
So are you saying Karl, that violence on men is ok by women..., I am a
little suprised by that...
What these laws promote, is discrimation on men through police procedures...
and if you had a problem the man that you talk about, then deal with that
fact, not the issue
brought forth, maybe the guy is a scum bag but he's bringing forth a very
serious issue in are laws
that government has over looked and continals to violate people rights. I've
always figured you to understand
that Karl, about rights and freedoms....
>
> For those who are not familiar with Mr. J. Kirby Inwood, he's the man who
> could not sustain a relationship with any Canadian woman so he went to
> Russia to buy himself what he hoped to be a servile wife. It did not
matter
> to him much that what he purchased was a whore, what the hell, as long as
> she's deperate enough. And just to be sure, he got her pregnant. He fought
> Canadian authorities for about a year to allow this flower of Russian
> womanhood to come into Canada. Within a week of her arrival in Toronto,
> Kirby got drunk out of his mind, came home, beat up his new wife, smacked
> his not even a year old son, poured cold water on the baby to make him
stop
> cry.
>
> He was convicted of a few assaults, did a few months in jail. In the mean
> time, his "bought" wife divorced him and got an order preventing his
access
> to the son. Like duuuh, man.
Yes Karl guys like him get what they deserve, but the issue what these
policys on violence issues...
For some strange reason, Mr. Kirby considers
> himself a victim. He particularly doesn't like me posting excerpts from
> some of the judgments against him in these matters where the judge
recounts
> this man's treatment of his wife and son and a long history of abuse of
> women as well as the results of his examinations by the UofT Psychiatric
> Institute.
Yes Karl fine you posted some stuff on him, if he was guilty of a crime then
he gets what he deserves...
Thats not the issue Karl, it may be this guy is a scum bag I don't know, the
issue is there are alot of men who
have been assulted by there wives and girlfrenids, and even their ex-wives
and have been jail for not committing any crime, and the government even
here in BC, the Attorney Generals office has this policys that violate the
Charter, based on gender and the fact that if women assult a man in the
home, the police are told to only arrest the man only,
these are based on those policys of the Attorney General office..
I believe you know some men Karl have had that happen to them that didn't do
anything. As that was pointed out to me some time back.... I believe Merlin
would like to discuss that matter....with you....
>
> And that's the kind of a man you base your fight for justice on, Artie?
Not the man, the issue Karl of violence on men, and I'm surprised that you
support violence
on men, MP Keith Martan knows quite a bite about violence on men, as he said
he was writing a book on this issue...
king.arthur
> x-no-archive: yes
> "king.arthur" <king....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >maybe the guy is a scum bag but he's bringing forth a very
> >serious issue in are laws
>
> the judgments against him you would clearly see that his take on facts is
> completely different from any other sane person, regardless of their view
> of men's rights.
that maybe so, but it doesn't take away the fact that the laws being used
are being abused by police and the Attorney General's office. The Policy is
abusive to men, and it shows it's sex discrimation. The charter is very
clear on that...
>
> >I've always figured you to understand that Karl, about rights and
freedoms....
>
> Yes I do. But I am not about to adopt a deranged wife beater as my poster
> boy for men's rights.
He is not my poster boy, the meare fact of the issue brought forth on
women's violence is a serious issue,
and should not be over looked. The point is, there are many men falsly
accused of violence that they didn't committ. Also they are brought to court
on heresay evindence and charged of these offences of violence.
As for this man himself, if indeed he was violence then I personally believe
he got his just reward...
If men are being blanketly labelled as women abusers,
> violent, etc. it is precisely people like Inwood who provide plenty of
> fodder for the hysterical fenminists to get what they want.
Yes that is true, but I am looking at the Governments policy on this issue,
and the charter violation on people in general who were falsly accused...not
this man's Inwood personal choice....to use violence on women...
>
> >Yes Karl guys like him get what they deserve, but the issue what these
> >policys on violence issues...
>
> Huh?
Governments policys on violence issues...that are fair on both men and
women...
>
> >Yes Karl fine you posted some stuff on him, if he was guilty of a crime
then
> >he gets what he deserves...
> >
> >Thats not the issue Karl, it may be this guy is a scum bag I don't know,
the
> >issue is there are alot of men who have been assulted by there wives and
> >girlfrenids, and even their ex-wives and have been jail for not
committing
> >any crime,
>
> And Inwood is not one of them. So you don't use his twisted version of his
> story without checking the facts.
Again Karl, I wasn't interested in his personal life, and you have missed
the point, it was just the issue he brought forth on men being
abused....with women violence, it doesn't make it any more right what he did
and I agree with you on that, but in BC, the policys are the same and I
personal don't like the fact that they are there, and that most women abuse
those policys.....
If you want a poster boy, pick up that
> guy in Hamilton who had to go through several bouts of court session till
> he finally convinced the police to arrest and the courts to jail his
> ex-wife for continually defying court orders to allow him to see his own
> kids. Certainly not a scuzzball like Inwood.
Well the poster boy is Darrin White, not Inwood....
>
> >I believe you know some men Karl have had that happen to them that didn't
do
> >anything. As that was pointed out to me some time back.... I believe
Merlin
> >would like to discuss that matter....with you....
>
> I'm really not interested in discussing anything with him, you or any
other
> fanatic who is hell bent on creating crap on the net, all the while hiding
> behind incessant string of aliases.
Oh please Karl, lets not get foaming over this issue, that's your choice and
I am not into pushing anything....and so what if I use aliases, it to
protect my kids from the nut cases on the net, I used my real name once,
only to find my kids were being stalk from some sick fuck, and if you have a
problem with that while get over it....
Your entire pack of desperate
> Liberatarians keep lecturing everybody about principles,
I'm not one of those Liberatarians, and never have been Karl, you must be
thinking of others....and what they do is their right, or are you going to
tell me, you are the only one who figures there only right...
but none of your
> lot have the fortitude to attach your real names to your alleged
> principles.
I don't for good reasons but then why would you care so much, or are you one
of those stalkers on the net...
>
> It makes you if not the laughing stock then at least ignored pestilence of
> the net.
Well, so what if it does, my views and right to express myself and say what
I believe is no different then you or others who express views. You are not
100% right about everything Karl, and there are many who think you a
laughing stock. But I don't slam you, because some of the stuff I find
interesting in what you state. You are just being ignorent by not looking at
the hole picture....and I personal don't give a rat ass if you dislike this
guy Inwood, but his point of women violence is valied...
>
> >> And that's the kind of a man you base your fight for justice on, Artie?
As I said no, just the issue of women violence...
> >
> >Not the man, the issue Karl of violence on men, and I'm surprised that
you
> >support violence on men,
>
> Well, there you go again, slimy little prick.
Oh good, a new name.....
If I don't accept the ravings
> of a convicted and self admitted wife beater as the gospel, I guess I must
> be in favour of unmitigated violence against men.
Lets just stick with the issue of women's violence Karl, I don't care about
Inwood...
>
> You can try that sort of shit on somebody stupid enough to play that kind
> of a game, I ain't playing.
No one said you had to play anykind of shit, I brought forth a issue and you
rant and rave about some scumbag, you missed the point Karl. Violence on Men
by women, when the laws allow violence from one sex but slam the other sex
in jail, don't you think that going to far with government policys...
>
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland
king.arthur
> x-no-archive: yes
> "king.arthur" <king....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >maybe the guy is a scum bag but he's bringing forth a very
> >serious issue in are laws
>
> the judgments against him you would clearly see that his take on facts is
> completely different from any other sane person, regardless of their view
> of men's rights.
that maybe so, but it doesn't take away the fact that the laws being used
are being abused by police and the Attorney General's office. The Policy is
abusive to men, and it shows it's sex discrimination. The charter is very
clear on that...
>
> >I've always figured you to understand that Karl, about rights and
freedoms....
>
> Yes I do. But I am not about to adopt a deranged wife beater as my poster
> boy for men's rights.
He is not my poster boy, the mere fact of the issue brought forth on women's
violence is a serious issue,
and should not be over looked. The point is, there are many men falsely
accused of violence that they didn't commit. Also they are brought to court
on hearsay evidence and charged of these offences of violence.
As for this man himself, if indeed he was violence then I personally believe
he got his just reward...
If men are being blanketly labelled as women abusers,
> violent, etc. it is precisely people like Inwood who provide plenty of
> fodder for the hysterical fenminists to get what they want.
Yes that is true, but I am looking at the Governments policy on this issue,
and the charter violation on people in general who were falsely
accused...not this man's Inwood personal choice....to use violence on
women...
>
> >Yes Karl guys like him get what they deserve, but the issue what these
> >policys on violence issues...
>
> Huh?
Governments policies on violence issues...that are fair on both men and
women...
>
> >Yes Karl fine you posted some stuff on him, if he was guilty of a crime
then
> >he gets what he deserves...
> >
> >Thats not the issue Karl, it may be this guy is a scum bag I don't know,
the
> >issue is there are alot of men who have been assaulted by there wives and
> >girlfrenids, and even their ex-wives and have been jail for not
committing
> >any crime,
>
> And Inwood is not one of them. So you don't use his twisted version of his
> story without checking the facts.
Again Karl, I wasn't interested in his personal life, and you have missed
the point, it was just the issue he brought forth on men being
abused....with women violence, it doesn't make it any more right what he did
and I agree with you on that, but in BC, the policies are the same and I
personal don't like the fact that they are there, and that most women abuse
those policies.....
If you want a poster boy, pick up that
> guy in Hamilton who had to go through several bouts of court session till
> he finally convinced the police to arrest and the courts to jail his
> ex-wife for continually defying court orders to allow him to see his own
> kids. Certainly not a scuzzball like Inwood.
Well the poster boy is Darrin White, not Inwood....
>
> >I believe you know some men Karl have had that happen to them that didn't
do
> >anything. As that was pointed out to me some time back.... I believe
Merlin
> >would like to discuss that matter....with you....
>
> I'm really not interested in discussing anything with him, you or any
other
> fanatic who is hell bent on creating crap on the net, all the while hiding
> behind incessant string of aliases.
Oh please Karl, lets not get foaming over this issue, that's your choice and
I am not into pushing anything....and so what if I use aliases, it to
protect my kids from the nut cases on the net, I used my real name once,
only to find my kids were being stalk from some sick fuck, and if you have a
problem with that while get over it....
Your entire pack of desperate
> Liberatarians keep lecturing everybody about principles,
I'm not one of those Libertarians, and never have been Karl, you must be
thinking of others....and what they do is their right, or are you going to
tell me, you are the only one who figures there only right...
but none of your
> lot have the fortitude to attach your real names to your alleged
> principles.
I don't for good reasons but then why would you care so much, or are you one
of those stalkers on the net...
>
> It makes you if not the laughing stock then at least ignored pestilence of
> the net.
Well, so what if it does, my views and right to express myself and say what
I believe is no different then you or others who express views. You are not
100% right about everything Karl, and there are many who think you a
laughing stock. But I don't slam you, because some of the stuff I find
interesting in what you state. You are just being ignorant by not looking at
the hole picture....and I personal don't give a rat ass if you dislike this
guy Inwood, but his point of women violence is valid...
>
> >> And that's the kind of a man you base your fight for justice on, Artie?
As I said no, just the issue of women violence...
> >
> >Not the man, the issue Karl of violence on men, and I'm surprised that
you
> >support violence on men,
>
> Well, there you go again, slimy little prick.
Oh good, a new name.....
If I don't accept the ravings
> of a convicted and self admitted wife beater as the gospel, I guess I must
> be in favour of unmitigated violence against men.
Lets just stick with the issue of women's violence Karl, I don't care about
Inwood...
>
> You can try that sort of shit on somebody stupid enough to play that kind
> of a game, I ain't playing.
No one said you had to play anykind of shit, I brought forth a issue and you
rant and rave about some scumbag, you missed the point Karl. Violence on Men
by women, when the laws allow violence from one sex but slam the other sex
in jail, don't you think that going to far with government policies...
>
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland
Bond
<king....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Police are part of systemic gender discrimination
>
>By Paul St. Pierre
>
>November 15th 2001
>
>Prince George Free Press
>
> In the United States, whose constitution asserts that all men are created
>equal, the Supreme Court asserted for many generations that the evidence of
>one white man was worth the evidence of two black men. It was shameful but
>it was the law of the land, as interpreted by the highest court in the land.
>
> For more than a century it guided American jurisprudence and only a few
>decades ago did that same Supreme Court repent and become active in
>promoting genuine equality among all citizens.
>
> It's all past history now. Why should someone who is not an American rake
>up the fires of old tyranny in this year 2001?
They've done far worse things than that. For example, slavery was a
big industry at one point. They've assassinated leaders of other
countries, overthrown governments, killed millions in their efforts to
stabilize their oil supplies.
> For a Canadian, there's good reason because, while the American courts have
>become more enlightened, the rulers of Canada are darkening the face of our
>justice system by proceeding in exactly the opposite direction. They are
>actively promoting inequality among the people of this democracy.
How so? I find the Canadian justice system far more reasonable than
the US. Internationally the Americans side with Americans nearly 100%
of the time. Not because they are right or just, but merely because
they are Americans. It's a horrible justice system.
Personally, I've found that if a woman smiles while they talk about
their abusive ex-boyfriend/husband/father then you'd better find
someone else to have sex with. :-)
king.arthur
> x-no-archive: yes
> "king.arthur" <king....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Again Karl, I wasn't interested in his personal life, and you have missed
> >the point, it was just the issue he brought forth on men being
> >abused....with women violence,
>
> On several fronts. First of all, nobody is going to listen to a convicted
> wife beater complaining about men being abused.
Karl, it the issue of violence on Men, not the person....you hate so
much....
>
> However, the the second and by far more important point is that there is
no
> such thing as violence of men against women or women against men. There
is
> just violence.
Not as far as the laws go, that the BC Attorney general office promotes, to
police, to the courts, ect.
The only violence that is really looked at, (is the violence men do.)....and
why is that?,
because it is the only politital correct issue that government and feminist
promote.
And That is what these government policys are about, an example, women who
murders their children.
What does she get for her crime, case throughn out, or dismissed. Excuses
after excuses used on all fronts to
dismisss these Women's crimes or state their victims, and the same goes for
those women, who murder men or assult those men, what do they get, front
page news, stating there only crime was she was a victim of abuse, what
bullshit....
it makes no difference who the perptrator is or who the
> victim is. It is still violence and it is aborrent in all its forms.
You are so sadly mistaken Karl, the laws only look at perptrators who are
men.....and women as victims
Sorry I am not bying your horse shit at all....
>
> By singling out violence of women agaisnt men, you are committing the same
> obscenity as the freakazoid feminists who only know of guys like Inwood.
No, some people do not fear the truth Karl, or fear to point the truth out
to those, who don't understand
or are blinded by ignorent propanganda by government and feminist who make
these laws, to under mind
the family.
>
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland
king.arthur
>They've done far worse things than that. For example, >slavery was a
>big industry at one point. They've assassinated leaders >of other
>countries, overthrown governments, killed millions in >their efforts to
>stabilize their oil supplies.
what makes you think it's any different...
>
> How so? I find the Canadian justice system far more reasonable than
> the US. Internationally the Americans side with Americans nearly 100%
> of the time. Not because they are right or just, but merely because
> they are Americans. It's a horrible justice system.
Since you think slavery and the Justice is some thing else, I will answer it
for you....this is the real Justice system in Canada.....one example support
"In order to meet this legal obligation, a parent MUST earn what the parent
is capable of earning" [no distinction is made between the support paying
and receiving parents] ...There is a duty to seek employment in a case where
a parent is healthy and there is no reason why the parent cannot work. It is
no answer for a person liable to support a child to say he is unemployed and
does not intend to seek work or that his potential to earn income is an
irrelevant factor ... A parent's limited work experience and job skills do
not justify a failure to pursue employment that does not require significant
skills, or employment in which the necessary skills can be learned on the
job. While this may mean that job availability will be at the lower end of
the wage scale, courts have never sanctioned the refusal of a parent to take
reasonable steps to support his or her children simply because the parent
cannot obtain interesting or highly paid employment. Persistence in
unremunerative employment may entitle the court to impute income. A parent
cannot be excused from his or her child support obligations in furtherance
of unrealistic or unproductive career aspirations. As a general rule, a
parent cannot avoid child support obligations by a self-induced reduction of
income. ." [See: Date: 19991015 Docket: E006672 B.C. Supreme Court. Hanson
v. Hanson. Reasons For Judgment Of The Honourable Madam Justice Martinson
(In Chambers)]
Section 26.1(2) of the current Divorce Act that says the guidelines "shall
be based on the principle that spouses have a joint financial obligation to
maintain the children of the marriage in accordance with their relative
abilities to contribute to the performance of that obligation."
However, in practise this principle applies only to the non-custodial
parent, usually the father.
A custodial parent is free to abrogate this responsibility by simply handing
the child(ren) to foster care or putting up to adoption. Expectant mothers
can terminate their pregnancies and new mothers can surreptitiously abandon
their newborns in "baby banks".
In some recent cases, which have now become a precedent, courts have
assigned an imputed income to disabled fathers under the pretext that though
they are unable to pursue their occupation, they should be able to find
different kind of employment in order to meet their obligations.
At times fathers have continued to work in spite of disability, while their
wives have opted not to become wage earners. The irony in these cases is
that even though the judges acknowledge the father's contribution, which
clearly has gone beyond duty, he is ordered to pay spousal support after
divorce. The same principle is not applied to the custodial parent who may
be eminently qualified but is unwilling to seek gainful employment.
In Dumont v. Dumont (2001 BCSC 1300) Boyd J., referring to Warren J,
admitted that Mr. Dumont had "a diminished ability to earn income in order
to meet both his expenses and his obligation to support the child . He
cannot expect the child's mother to pick up the full burden or his
diminished responsibility..."
In Barclay v. Barklay (2001 BCSC 1353) Madame Justice Koenigsberg said: "the
defendant has been able to not only look after himself but to also look
after his children while his [new] wife is at work." Thus, according to the
learned judge, he should be able to earn a living in spite of his handicap
in order to support his former wife, under the guise of child support.
In one the rare rational judgements Madame Justice Baker stated "Marriage is
not a legal institution created for the redistribution of wealth." [In:
Jensen v. Jensen , p. 20 (18 November 1994), Vancouver A921967] No other
judge, to the best of my knowledge, has held this a precedent setting
judgement.
However, the courts routinely order this redistribution, often under the
camouflage of "child support"
The Divorce Act, for example, directs the court to consider "any economic
advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its
breakdown". This is only seen to apply to the dependant spouse, usually the
wife. The spouse who supports his/her spouse, rather than enjoys the full
benefit of his income, is not seen as having suffered an economic
disadvantage arising from the marriage or from its breakdown.
Thus, a woman can claim compensation using whichever reason suits her the
best. If a woman was clearly advantaged by the marriage, because it gave her
a higher standard of living than she would ever have achieved on her own,
she'll be economically disadvantaged by the marriage breakdown. A man who
has provided his wife a better standard of living than she would have been
able to provide for herself, suffers from the breakdown of the marriage as
he is invariable ordered to continue to support his former spouse and
children, who no longer offer any reciprocal benefits, be it either material
or emotional. Thus, he suffers economic disadvantages that arise from the
marriage and its breakdown, even though the very essence of the marriage
contract may have been frustrated by the other party, either by inability or
unwillingness to perform her part in return.
In James v. James Brockenshire J. accepted the argument that the payor
father should have income imputed to him as he declined to work the extra
overtime that his employer offered and would no longer work more than 55
hours a week. [1998] O.J. 1301 (Gen. Div).
In Polson v. Polson (2000 BCSC 1477) Blair J ruled that a woman, who has a
grade 10 education and walks out of marriage with more than $500,000 cash,
is seen to be eligible to spousal and child support for adult children.
And so it goes, on and on. Slavery in Canada is alive and well.
king.arthur
December 5, 2001
Men challenge 'bible' of violence against women
A Toronto inquest will question the validity of a standard reference book.
Dave Brown
The Ottawa Citizen
Tuesday, December 04, 2001
The job in front of a coroner's inquest in Toronto puts the five-member jury
in a position similar to that faced by jurors in the historic 1925 Scopes
Monkey Trial, which many still call the trial of the (20th) century.
The famous U.S. case challenged the Bible and the right of its believers to
ban the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in schools. It was
modernism against fundamentalism and the winner was Darwin. His supporters
were represented by Clarence Darrow, one of the most famous lawyers in the
U.S.
The Toronto inquest also has a bible on trial. Among the first pieces of
evidence submitted was the 1992 Final Report of the Canadian Panel on
Violence Against Women.
Not quite as long as the Bible, it is the standard reference book for a
growing industry that claims violence against women is a hidden epidemic
seen only by selected front-line workers, many of whom have connections to
women's shelters, rape crisis centres and hundreds of other women's
organizations whose government funding relies on persuading society that
domestic violence is not an isolated phenomenon, but a widespread pathology.
The inquest concerns the June 20, 2000 deaths of Gillian and Ralph Hadley.
They were separated and he ignored a restraining order, drove to their home
in Pickering and killed Gillian. Then he killed himself.
It is not the role of inquests to fix blame or guilt, but they can, and
often do, result in new laws and social policies. Lawyers at inquests don't
carry as much weight as they do at trials, but in this one two lawyers have
been granted standing by deputy coroner Bonita Porter because they represent
the two extremes in the domestic-violence issue.
Geri Sanson represents the Ontario Association of Interval and Transitional
Housing and believes the 1992 report, called CanPan by insiders, is biblical
in its truths. Walter Fox represents Fathers Are Capable Too (FACT), which
challenges almost everything in CanPan and the laws to which it has given
birth. The men's group, which includes a number of women and grandparents,
says violence statistics are wildly exaggerated and when domestic violence
does occur, men are just as likely to be the victims. FACT has a paid
membership of 170.
Annual deaths in Canada connected to couples violence ranges from 70 to 80,
with women by far the majority of victims. Male deaths are about 10 per
cent.
Because he's challenging fundamental beliefs, Mr. Fox could seem to be
playing Mr. Darrow's defence role. That puts Ms. Sanson in the position of
playing the role of Scopes prosecutor William Jennings Bryan. (John Scopes
was the teacher accused of breaking Tennessee law by teaching Darwinian
theory.)
At stake in the inquest are the recommendations that will be issued at its
close, expected in January. A similar inquest in the same courtroom in 1998
into another murder-suicide studied the 1996 killing of Arlene May by her
former boyfriend, Randy Iles. That inquest came out with 213 recommendations
and led eventually to the creation and passing last year of Ontario's
Domestic Violence Protection Act (Bill 117).
That law has been challenged by, among others, the criminal law section of
the Canadian Bar Association, which argues the proposed legislation intrudes
on the exclusive federal jurisdiction over criminal matters.
Although the new law hasn't yet been used, it's part of the weaponry in the
war against violence against women. Using it could transfer all of an
accused's assets to the accuser in cases of violence against women. It could
be done through an ex parte hearing while the accused is in jail, meaning he
wouldn't be represented.
Men's groups were not represented at the May/Iles inquest. The Hadley
inquest marks the first time a lawyer representing the interests of a
predominantly men's group has been granted standing. If things fall together
as expected, the CanPan could be given its first test of public
accountability.
There are many, including Trent University professor John Fekete, who say
CanPan is a work of fiction. In Moral Panic, Mr. Fekete argues the report is
a series of doctored statistics and fabricated survival stories.
A newspaper editor would likely not accept any of the CanPan report because
it doesn't name sources and is packed with unattributed quotes. Yet
countless newspaper stories have been written quoting people making claims,
using the CanPan as reference material.
Example: "He hasn't put one dollar in my hands even though I get family
allowance and disability cheques. He takes it all. When my husband goes
shopping, he buys gifts for another woman and I am the one who has to take
them to her."
Dozens of similar unattributed quotes are scattered through the report, all
intended to make men look hateful, but also make women look stupid. Did
somebody consider it within limits to stretch the truth to prevent anything
as abhorrent as violence against women?
Another famous American involved in the Monkey Trial was columnist H.L.
Mencken, who covered it. Among his profound beliefs was: "I believe that no
trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but
vicious."
Over the next several days, this column will document some of the damage
being done to men and women as a result of social policies based on CanPan.
In all accounts, names will be used. These stories will be documented in
such a way that they'll be open to investigation by anyone who wants to talk
to the sources. The CanPan, in contrast, is written is such a way that
checking facts is impossible.
First up is Ottawa police case No. 99-180060, involving Douglas G. Rowe, an
angry taxpayer.
On Oct. 24, 1999, Mr. Rowe, now 56, called police and asked them to be in
his home while he removed some belongings. He wanted out of his marriage and
didn't want to risk conflict and/or accusations in a situation that could be
hostile. Two officers stood by as he made his move. He spent the night with
relatives.
The next morning, he was hauled out of bed, arrested and handcuffed. His
wife had complained she was assaulted. He spent 18 hours in jail finding out
what it felt like to be a criminal. At the time, he told the arresting
officer and the investigating detective to check with the officers who came
to his home the night before.
Instead, he was formally charged. Tell it to the judge. He hired lawyer
William J. Carroll, who was able to have the charge withdrawn Jan. 6, 2000.
Mr. Rowe never appeared in court. His legal bill was $5,350.
Adding to his feeling of victimization is that two weeks after the arrest,
his wife approached him. He locked the doors of his vehicle and used his
cellphone to call police. When they arrived, it was Rowe who was stretched
over the hood and searched. He says the assumption of male guilt is
discrimination.
That he had such costs added to his problems and that there was no attempt
to have his wife called to account was, in Mr. Rowe's opinion, not just. He
filed a formal complaint (00-0065) against Ottawa police Const. Anthony
Persaud, who arrested him, and Det. Lyse Fournier, who charged him. His
claim was that he had been poorly served by these officers because they
didn't check with the officers from the night before.
The reply to that complaint was a drop-dead letter dated Aug. 2, 2000,
written by Ottawa police lawyer Vince Westwick. The problem, Mr. Westwick
said, was that the officers who attended the night of the move had not filed
reports. They were "counselled" for the oversight.
The officers ended up filing reports that could have cleared Mr. Rowe, but
only two days after the incident. There is no attempt in the Westwick letter
to explain why it took so long for the news to travel down the hall at the
police station. Mr. Westwick suggests missing details can be blamed on the
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The police lawyer says Det. Fournier had no choice but to charge "under
police policy on partner assault which goes hand in hand with the Solicitor
General's Wife Assault Policy."
These policies translate to zero tolerance and are responsible for
channelling 120 men a month into Ottawa's Domestic Violence Court. Men on
this DV court ride can't go home, even if the woman recants, until they
plead guilty. Domestic squabbles are now classified as violence against
women and the guilty pleas are making the statistics skyrocket.
Mr. Rowe has a circle of friends and a large extended family, all losing
faith in a system and trust in police. They believe police should not follow
a policy based on an overly zealous reaction to any complaint from a woman.
Police take the view they are just following orders.
Such policies could become tougher if Ms. Sanson sways the Hadley jury.
Š Copyright2001 The Ottawa Citizen
> However, the the second and by far more important point is that there is
no
> such thing as violence of men against women or women against men. There
is
> just violence. it makes no difference who the perptrator is or who the
> victim is. It is still violence and it is aborrent in all its forms.
>
> By singling out violence of women agaisnt men, you are committing the same
> obscenity as the freakazoid feminists who only know of guys like Inwood.
>
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland
Bond
This sounds reasonable to me. We aren't talking about adults here, we
are talking about children, and I think when a parent brings a child
into this world they are in effect signing a contract saying they will
support that child with food, education, love, etc. until he/she is
old enough to do that for themselves.
>Section 26.1(2) of the current Divorce Act that says the guidelines "shall
>be based on the principle that spouses have a joint financial obligation to
>maintain the children of the marriage in accordance with their relative
>abilities to contribute to the performance of that obligation."
>
>However, in practise this principle applies only to the non-custodial
>parent, usually the father.
>
>A custodial parent is free to abrogate this responsibility by simply handing
>the child(ren) to foster care or putting up to adoption. Expectant mothers
>can terminate their pregnancies and new mothers can surreptitiously abandon
>their newborns in "baby banks".
>
>In some recent cases, which have now become a precedent, courts have
>assigned an imputed income to disabled fathers under the pretext that though
>they are unable to pursue their occupation, they should be able to find
>different kind of employment in order to meet their obligations.
>
>At times fathers have continued to work in spite of disability, while their
>wives have opted not to become wage earners. The irony in these cases is
>that even though the judges acknowledge the father's contribution, which
>clearly has gone beyond duty, he is ordered to pay spousal support after
>divorce. The same principle is not applied to the custodial parent who may
>be eminently qualified but is unwilling to seek gainful employment.
I think spousal support is something else entirely from child support
and I totally agree with you that the legal system treats men
unfairly. It's a throwback from the era when women weren't allowed to
work and were treated esssentially like children. Times have changed
and women demand more rights and responsibilities, as they should, but
are not all that eager to get rid of the free cash they got from the
previous way of doing things.
>In Dumont v. Dumont (2001 BCSC 1300) Boyd J., referring to Warren J,
>admitted that Mr. Dumont had "a diminished ability to earn income in order
>to meet both his expenses and his obligation to support the child . He
>cannot expect the child's mother to pick up the full burden or his
>diminished responsibility..."
>In Barclay v. Barklay (2001 BCSC 1353) Madame Justice Koenigsberg said: "the
>defendant has been able to not only look after himself but to also look
>after his children while his [new] wife is at work." Thus, according to the
>learned judge, he should be able to earn a living in spite of his handicap
>in order to support his former wife, under the guise of child support.
How did he earn a living while they were married? I don't think being
a handicapped person entitles you to live off everyone else or gets
you off the hook from supporting your children. If I were the judge
in this case, I would have granted the father custody of the children
(as he is already looking after children) and made the healthy wife go
out and find a job.
>In one the rare rational judgements Madame Justice Baker stated "Marriage is
>not a legal institution created for the redistribution of wealth." [In:
>Jensen v. Jensen , p. 20 (18 November 1994), Vancouver A921967] No other
>judge, to the best of my knowledge, has held this a precedent setting
>judgement.
Bravo!
>However, the courts routinely order this redistribution, often under the
>camouflage of "child support"
>
>The Divorce Act, for example, directs the court to consider "any economic
>advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its
>breakdown". This is only seen to apply to the dependant spouse, usually the
>wife. The spouse who supports his/her spouse, rather than enjoys the full
>benefit of his income, is not seen as having suffered an economic
>disadvantage arising from the marriage or from its breakdown.
Sounds like court sanctioned co-dependency. Best bet is to avoid
co-dependent women entirely since the courts don't seem to recognize
it as a mental illness. She needs therapy in separating from her
father, not continued enablement. I agree with you here.
>Thus, a woman can claim compensation using whichever reason suits her the
>best. If a woman was clearly advantaged by the marriage, because it gave her
>a higher standard of living than she would ever have achieved on her own,
>she'll be economically disadvantaged by the marriage breakdown. A man who
>has provided his wife a better standard of living than she would have been
>able to provide for herself, suffers from the breakdown of the marriage as
>he is invariable ordered to continue to support his former spouse and
>children, who no longer offer any reciprocal benefits, be it either material
>or emotional. Thus, he suffers economic disadvantages that arise from the
>marriage and its breakdown, even though the very essence of the marriage
>contract may have been frustrated by the other party, either by inability or
>unwillingness to perform her part in return.
I don't like lumping the women and children together like this. I
don't think it's the responsibility of the child to provide reciprocal
benefits to it's parents. They have enough on their hands with just
growing up to be forced into some sort of slavery. The wives, on the
other hand are adults and should be expected to pay for themselves.
Just an idea on how to solve this: the parent that is making money
should be the one who chooses what that money can be spent on and
where those children will live. If the woman refuses to work to
support her kids then she simply loses her kids to her husband.
That's pretty good incentive.
king.arthur
> x-no-archive: yes
> "king.arthur" <king....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Karl, it the issue of violence on Men, not the person....you hate so
> >much....
>
In your eyes...
>
> Would you give any consideration to any brilliant political ideas if they
> were raised by such luminaries as Glen Clark or Brian Mulroney?
If they could stop policys and laws, that hurt people, yes I would....
>
> >Sorry I am not bying your horse shit at all....
>
> OK, so go and buy Inwood's horse shit if you like.
no matter who said it or brought it forth the issue is valid..
It's a free country.
not really....not any more....
>
>
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland
Smokin'
> This sounds reasonable to me. We aren't talking about adults here, we
> are talking about children, and I think when a parent brings a child
> into this world they are in effect signing a contract saying they will
> support that child with food, education, love, etc. until he/she is
> old enough to do that for themselves.
Is anyone arguing otherwise?
> I think spousal support is something else entirely from child support
> and I totally agree with you that the legal system treats men
> unfairly. It's a throwback from the era when women weren't allowed to
> work and were treated esssentially like children.
Not really. It's an entirely new system that treats men like slaves.
> Times have changed
> and women demand more rights and responsibilities, as they should, but
> are not all that eager to get rid of the free cash they got from the
> previous way of doing things.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
> >In Barclay v. Barklay (2001 BCSC 1353) Madame Justice Koenigsberg said:
"the
> >defendant has been able to not only look after himself but to also look
> >after his children while his [new] wife is at work." Thus, according to
the
> >learned judge, he should be able to earn a living in spite of his
handicap
> >in order to support his former wife, under the guise of child support.
>
> How did he earn a living while they were married?
Why does that matter?
> I don't think being
> a handicapped person entitles you to live off everyone else or gets
> you off the hook from supporting your children.
What is this fixation with getting off the hook supporting children? It is
the courts who take control of children, perhaps the courts should also be
taking the responsibility to feed and clothe them? Alternatively, the courts
could cease kidnapping children, and the "support problem" would vanish. I
mean, we don't actually have any "support problems" with children who live
with their parents... do we?
> If I were the judge
> in this case, I would have granted the father custody of the children
> (as he is already looking after children) and made the healthy wife go
> out and find a job.
You will never be appointed judge.
> >However, the courts routinely order this redistribution, often under the
> >camouflage of "child support"
> >
> >The Divorce Act, for example, directs the court to consider "any economic
> >advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or
its
> >breakdown". This is only seen to apply to the dependant spouse, usually
the
> >wife. The spouse who supports his/her spouse, rather than enjoys the full
> >benefit of his income, is not seen as having suffered an economic
> >disadvantage arising from the marriage or from its breakdown.
>
> Sounds like court sanctioned co-dependency.
No, it is legislated slavery. The courts simply take the path of least
resistance and judges take the path of doing whatever will enhance their
chances of promotion.
> Best bet is to avoid
> co-dependent women entirely since the courts don't seem to recognize
> it as a mental illness. She needs therapy in separating from her
> father, not continued enablement. I agree with you here.
Sure, but the fact that people do sometimes marry unwisely does not excuse
or explain our system of male-slavery.
> I don't like lumping the women and children together like this.
Really? What do you think of the slogan "Stop violence against women and
children"?
> I
> don't think it's the responsibility of the child to provide reciprocal
> benefits to it's parents. They have enough on their hands with just
> growing up to be forced into some sort of slavery. The wives, on the
> other hand are adults and should be expected to pay for themselves.
>
> Just an idea on how to solve this: the parent that is making money
> should be the one who chooses what that money can be spent on and
> where those children will live.
Obviously, you are a misogynist who hates womyn and wants them to be
controlled by the patriarchy.
> If the woman refuses to work to
> support her kids then she simply loses her kids to her husband.
> That's pretty good incentive.
Why do people always assume that judges have some legitimate authority to
"award" children like raffle prizes? I have been unable to find a judge, a
lawyer, a law professor or any legal scholar who can explain a legitimate
lawful source for such authority. And yes, I have asked quite a number of
them.