Guilty until proven guilty

Domestic violence courts extended

Stock photo of a man punching a woman in the face, instead of, say, a woman attacking her husband, as is the case in around half of domestic violence cases? Check.Quote from some whore from a Woman's Aid charity, no doubt some raving femtard who hates all men and loves her job attacking them via the anti-male legal system? Check.References to male victims of domestic violence? Of course not. This is the fucking BBC; Bitch Broadcasting Corporation.

The Specialist Domestic Violence Court Programme, which involves prosecutors, police and victim support groups, aims to bring more offenders to justice.Translation:The Specialist Domestic Violence Court Programme, which involves prosecutors, police and hysterical feminist cunts, aims to bring more men to prison with only a token nod towards any semblance of justice.

The 'fastracked' system put in operation sounds as if they just put men on a conveyor belt and stamp guilty on them, making a mockery of justice and increasing cynicism towards genuine cases of domestic violence. Some courts also have separate entrances and waiting areas so that victims do not run into their attackers.You mean their alleged attackers? Oh, wait, you don't. After all, a man accused of domestic violence must be guilty.

And on the off-chance that a woman is actually proven to be responsible for domestic violence, then she can get off scot-free because she was only defending herself (like this evil looking whore who escaped prison for stabbing her 'verbally abusive' husband to death; contrast it with this case of a young man hit with a 14-year sentence for stabbing a guy who sexually abused him for years when he was a kid. I guess a woman being shouted at is more justified in killing than a guy who was repeatedly raped by a child molester.)It also makes it possible for charges to still be pressed if the accusations are withdrawn, something that doesn't happen with normal crimes.

We'll end up with cases like those that have been occuring in the US, where women have admitted that they made up false accusations of domestic violence during the heat of an argument but hubby has been tried and convicted anyway (and in some cases, women who have made such a retraction of charges have been threatened with having their children taken off them by Social Services if they dare to try and deprive prosecutors of a chance to lock up a man.)Britain may not have its own equivalent of America's Violence Against Women Act, but we might as well.

A woman only has to make an allegation and the guy is screwed, even more so with these fastracked systems that are run by feminist cunts and therefore never, ever take into account either male victims of domestic violence or the possibility that some women make up allegations out of spite.

Ultra-successful brainwashing of the public by the media

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/verismo/dv.againstmen.html

If you want to find an example of ultra-successful brainwashing of the public by
the media, you need look no further than the subject of domestic violence;
though I have to admit that child abuse runs it a close second. If you ask the
man-in-the-street what he thinks domestic violence is, he will probably tell you
that it is men attacking women within the family. If you further ask him why he
thinks this, he will tell you that he has heard it many times in TV news
broadcasts, read about it in newspapers and magazines and has seen adverts about
it on television.

Exactly! In a word he has been brainwashed and, sadly, he is by
no means alone; he is in the company of his wife, his neighbours, his children's
teachers, his bank manager and countless politicians. They are all totally
ignorant of the true facts about domestic violence. So where can these poor
beleaguered souls discover the truth about this important problem which
constantly batters their ears and eyeballs? The sad answer is, it's all around
them if only they use their eyes and their ears.

Custody clash father tells why

An Auckland father at the centre of an international custody dispute has told his family he is hiding with his 5-month-old daughter because of an “unfair” court decision to award custody to her mother.

Police yesterday appealed for 39-year-old Stephen Paul Jelicich to contact them and hand over baby Caitlin, following a request by Interpol.

But Stephen Jelicich’s father, Paul, last night told the Herald that his son would give himself up in exchange for a new custody hearing.

Paul Jelicich said Stephen and his wife arrived home at the end of October for a family holiday in Kumeu, West Auckland.

The relationship, which he described as “volatile", soured during the visit.

“She said [to Stephen], ‘I’m going to Wales and taking Caitlin with me and there’s not a thing you can do about it, and I don’t want you to come back’.” Mr Jelicich said his son took advice from police and lawyers and sought custody of his daughter.

The case went to the Family Court before Christmas but was adjourned until January 10.

Mrs Jelicich applied for an urgent hearing and it was granted on January 6, when the court declared the case should be heard in Britain, where Caitlin was born, and awarded the mother custody.

Stephen Jelicich claimed the custody hearing was rushed and “all he wants is his day in court", said his father.

“Nothing was done right,” said his mother, Jan Jelicich.

“He was supposed to be given 48 hours’ notice [of a hearing] but because it was going to be Christmas Day he was given 24 hours.”

Mr Jelicich snr said his son was a “good father” but “the system let him down” and running was his only option.

Redressing The Balance: The Men’s Manifesto

Tuesday, 14 December 2004, 9:56 am
Press Release: Men’s Coalition

Redressing The Balance: The Men’s Manifesto

The social landscape of New Zealand will be need to be changed dramatically if men are to have a “fair go” in New Zealand society, according to James Nicolle, Coordinator of the Men’s Coalition.

Mr. Nicolle was commenting on the release today of the Executive Summary of the MENZTABLE REPORT; a manifesto for men’s rights.

“Men in New Zealand are increasingly marginalised and persecuted by powerful trends in the socio-political agenda", he said.

”Men have reached this conclusion because of the raw deal we are getting in the Family Court, the Child Support system, social development, health and education.”

“Our political and social systems have progressively devalued the place of men in New Zealand today.”

“It is time for Men to reassert what is valuable to us and reclaim our right to be men,” he said.

The MENZTABLE REPORT has come from a meeting of representatives of men’s organisations held at Taupo in July.

The product of this meeting, the Men’s Coalition of New Zealand, is coordinating the preparation and release of the Report.

Mr. Nicolle said the body of the Report would be released in sections during 2005 to highlight men’s concerns throughout the election year.

“We see this as a seminal document which provides the vision and agenda of real men seeking to redress the balance and even out the scales.” Concluded Nicolle.

Mobile phones: The home invader

Mobile phones can be a useful safety device for children, but also make them vulnerable.

11.12.04
by Chris Barton

Whoever thought it was a good idea to equip mobile phones with cameras probably didn’t anticipate people taking photographs of their genitals and transmitting the images to websites for all to see.

But having places on the internet where people could send and publish - “post” - instant images taken with camera phones, was always part of the plan. They’re known as “moblogs” and most are innocuous - homes for electronic albums of family, pets, holidays, gatherings, and the like. Plus the weird craze of the moment in “drive-by shootings” - photos of buildings, roadsides, scenery or anything else one drives by.

But there are also a few moblogs where people have used the technology for less wholesome things - like the aforementioned instant DIY porn. Sick exhibitionists? Undoubtedly. But such sites also represent the avant-garde of mobile phone use - creativity gone mad when it comes to what one can do with a fledgling technology. Why? Because they can.

Surprising, new uses for mobiles are cropping up all time. Like the gang member in an Auckland District Court seen last week using a camera phone to photograph members of the jury. The judge was not impressed and immediately had the jury taken to a secret location.

The behaviour also has court officials and Government ministers wondering whether the incident represents a new tactic for causing mistrials - and whether mobile phones should be banned in court. Besides the spectre of pornographic postings and juror intimidation, other mobile phone behaviours may give parents pause for thought if they’re considering buying their daughter or son the latest in mobile gadgetry this Christmas.
(more…)

Open Letter to Men's "Activists"

I'm not sure how old this open letter by Robert Sides is

Wherever men's rights "activists" gather, 90-95% remain passive.

Christina Hoff Sommers, not Warren Farrell, writes pro-male pieces for the NYT and WSJ. Mona Charen, not Robert Bly, challenges the idea of women in the military. Men simply no longer know the difference between thinking and doing. Even on (the Internet), Betty and Gisele call for action...not men (who seem content to talk forever and ever and ever and ever while their ship not only sinks, it lays barnacled on the ocean floor).

This is very odd, since whenever men DO get off their duffs, media DO respond by printing their letters, etc. Nonetheless, like infants, most men still expect reporters to be mommy-mindreaders who "feed" them without their having to DO anything. Over and over and over and over again, cyber-groups form saying they're going to act. Then, they do everything BUT act.

From time to time, someone says, "Hey, we're still just talking, not acting. Feminists both talk AND act. When are WE going to act?" Then the group starts talking about acting. They wonder what "action" means, and in what context. Alternate spellings are offered. Historical roots are dug up. Angels are counted on the heads of pins. And on and on the b.s. goes. Fire consumes the "House of Men" because given water, men refuse to use it.

Inactivism aside, this also gnaws: In one of my posts, I wrote...Pretend I'm a reporter. I've read an (Internet) mailshot. Now...Whom do I call to talk about it...Groups attract talkers and dissuade doers, dilly-dallying all the live-long days.

It seems men's groups actually LIKE reinventing wheels. They have no sense of urgency. Their "patience" and "reason" and "Big Picture-itis" lets femi-madness like a cancer grow. All that's required for evil to stop is for good men to stand up and kick ass. Yet men won't.

Passivity, acquiescence, and modern maleness let [anti-male] feminism grow. The meek do indeed inherit the dirt.

Media do NOT ignore men [I doubt that]. They ignore meek, mild, tepid, silent, "nice" groups. Guys have been talking like schoolboys for a long, long, long time. The only reason feminists win is because men won't do more than talk. Men's groups leave the field wide open to NOW, never opposing it. Men refuse to play the media game. Grown men whine over media they never use. They cry, "The NYT is biased!" Yet they never do anything for reporters to cover. When you ask such men how many letters they've actually written, it's usually "zero."

Men are such ball-less babies.

Honest to god, it's amazing any males have jobs. They have no concept how to use PR judo, how to get covered by even hostile papers, how to spin disasters to advantages, and so on. What's worse, you can't tell them anything, show them anything. After a while, you think 'Geez, these guys are so stubborn, blind, and pig-headed, I think their exes were right to dump them. Even Mother Theresa tires [tired] of talking to walls."

Women's groups contact media daily. They repeat known lies forever. Yet men think a hundred guys emailing one Truth to each other online matters.

Wake up!

Men sit on a beach raked with enemy gun fire, playing cards. They ignore calls from others to seek cover and fight back. Modern men have a death wish, Big Time.

Men's groups are always "going to" put ads here, send letters there, do this and that. Only they never do. They're Walter Mitty, facing Panzers in their minds, pushing grocery carts for hen-pecking wives in reality.

Guys now think putting messages in email bottles will "kick-ass." In another thirty years they'll go, "Shazam! Maybe we should hold some creative, attention-getting events, too."

You roll on the floor watching them, guys desperately trying to find their butts with both hands. And failing.

Told and shown- time and again- what works (that is, what grabs media's attention, what media can be used for, what politicians look for), men's groups CHOOSE to act deaf, dumb, blind, lame, and halt.

Some say it takes "weeks" to get media addresses, for example. Yet anyone with Internet access and 2-3 search engines can download, sort, and log-by-category (country, state, county, province, city, etc.) email addresses for several hundred media outlets (print, TV and radio) in 1 hour.

Period. I know. I just did it.

Ah, what's the use...

Bwahahahahahahaha!

I'm going rogue again. I've done media alone before, I'll return to it now. Only this time, I'm going to bash males. Not for being men, but for NOT being men. The public has the right to belly-laughs.

Tales of grown men losing their honor, kids, jobs, savings, and lives while playing Keystone Kops WILL entertain the public. So get ready for some multi-media hoots.

Media DO carry pro-male stories when, once every blue moon, men do more than blather. They also carry feminist stories because women always act. They've also printed/aired a lot of my words/thoughts. So they'll positively LOVE my tales lunacy in the non-moving men's movement...the gangstas who wouldn't shoot straight.

Look, I've cried with men. Coddled them. Coached them. I've economically carried, emotionally consoled, and small-talk kvetched with hundreds of guys. No matter. Men want to fail. It's time the public knows what "really" goes on in men's groups.

So check your local papers. Read 'em and weep. Let the tears of laughter flow.

(Who knows, maybe men will finally get pissed off enough to ACT! Then again, given the lure of beer, peanuts, and watching football..) Spare me lectures on "misandry," too. I've no patience for it. I've been at this -actively - for 20 years. If you've done more, I'll listen. If not, stuff it.

Gender war rages all around. The time for false, ms-placed outrage is long past. Men had 3 whole decades to get pissed at the real enemy: fembots. Getting angry with me now for pointing out the obvious is just more male hooey. Anyone who wants to know why men are in such a sorry state needs only to study the boneheads "leading" most (all?) men's group. Kindergartners could whup their collective behinds.

After 30 years of non-stop, one-sided feminist bombardments, men STILL "think" about whether to fight back or not. They spew pearl-like nuggets of wisdom like, "we need to unite under one big umbrella." then to absolutely nothing to make that happen. Any man showing balls, who will slap a woman who slaps him, is immediately pulled down by weenies who think Boy Scout essays matter.

God help us: women DO have bigger testicles today. Money in hand, copy ready, weak-willed crybaby men couldn't even follow-through to put one tiny ad in one small paper. Then these same guys have the gall to say feminism is "failing" since NOW has "only" 250,000 members and "only" comment on every gender issue under the sun.

It's time to round up all males over age 12 and put them on feminist farms. Let them pull plows and be useful. Just give them beer and let them sit at computers at night, whining to each other about how hard their lives are. Then watch them fall over each other each day, showing Big Nurse how many acres THEY can till for the humans (females)!

Modern men: ice cream cones on their foreheads, "kick me!" signs on their backs.

Robert Sides, MA.

PS. If hearing all this makes you angry, good. There's still hope for you then. Now, you can either (1) vent on me - who's done more alone than most men's groups combined (not bragging, just stating the facts) or (2) unite and fight, marching against feminists. No "leader" will galvanize you. Men who want to fight WILL, though bare-handed and leaderless. Men who don't want to fight will sit on their backsides no matter who tries to lead them (El Cid, Saladin, Washington, DeGaulle, Peter The Great, Ho Chi Minh, etc.).

Fwd:HIS SIDE: Are Child Support Levels Too High?

Glenn Sacks <glenn@glennsacks.com> wrote:
Subject: Are Child Support Levels Too High?
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 02:48:07 -0500

Are Child Support Levels Too High? December 8, 2004 The promo for this week's His Side--"Are Child Support Levels Too High?"--is below. I invite you to call the show and join the discussion in progress at 5 PM PST/8 PM EST at 1-877-590-KTIE (in California) or 1-800-439-4805 (out of state).  For those who are outside of our radio stations' coverage ranges, you can listen to the show live this Sunday (12/12) via our station's excellent Internet stream at Listen Live. His Side with Glenn Sacks can be heard on WSNR AM 620 in New York City and North-Eastern New Jersey, and on WWZN AM 1510 in Boston on Sundays at 10 PM EST. The show can also be heard in Southern California on KTIE AM 590 at 5 PM PST. Also, you can have CDs of all His Side shows for six months mailed to you by clicking here. The archive of Sunday evening's show, NY Family Law: Justice or Bloodsport?, can be found here. The American Coalition for Fathers and Children is America's shared parenting organization. With thousands of members nationwide and affiliated organizations in many states, the ACFC is dedicated to creating a family law system which promotes equal rights for all parties affected by divorce. Shared Parenting is the real child support. Contact the ACFC at 1-800-978-3237 or visit them on the web at www.acfc.org.   If you own a business or professional practice and are interested in advertising on the show, please contact Advertise@HisSide.com. To support the advertisers who support His Side, go to His Side Advertisers. As always, all information about the show can be found at HisSide.com. I welcome your comments and suggestions. Best Wishes, Glenn Sacks Listen to His Side with Glenn Sacks GlennSacks.com   Are Child Support Levels Too High? According to economist R. Mark Rogers, "Child support guidelines currently in use by the U.S. states typically generate awards that are three to four times what they should be if based on economically sound cost tables and on a true equal duty of support standard for both parents" (emphasis added).  Rogers also believes that support levels have become so skewed in favor of custodial parents that even custodial parents with a substantially lesser income will still end up with a "significantly higher standard of living than the non-custodial parent." The situation is even more inequitable in cases where the custodial parent has a significantly higher income than the noncustodial. Rogers of Guideline Economics believes that child support levels are too high in practically every U.S. state and has proposed a Cost Shares guideline which he says will remedy the problem. Debbie Kline is the Executive Director of the Association for Children for the Enforcement of Support, a nationwide organization which advocates higher child support levels and tougher child support enforcement. Mark and Debbie will join Glenn on His Side with Glenn Sacks on Sunday, December 12 at 5 PM PST/8 PM EST. You can call the show and join the discussion in progress at 1-877-590-KTIE (in California) or 1-800-439-4805 (out of state). For those who are outside of our radio stations' coverage ranges, you can listen to the show live via our station's excellent Internet stream at Listen Live.  His Side with Glenn Sacks can be heard on WSNR AM 620 in New York City and North-Eastern New Jersey, and on WWZN AM 1510 in Boston on Sundays at 10 PM EST. The show can also be heard in Southern California on KTIE AM 590 at 5 PM PST. To learn more about child support, see: The Association for Children for the Enforcement of Support List of ACES' Accomplishments Mark Rogers' Guideline Economics Mark Rogers' Wisconsin-Style and Income Shares Child Support Guidelines: Excessive Burdens and Flawed Economic Foundation (Family Law Quarterly, Spring 1999) Glenn's co-authored column It's Child Support Guidelines that Need Surgery, Not 'Deadbeat Dads' (Cincinnati Post, Kentucky Post, 5/12/04) Glenn's three minute radio commentary on the Francis Borgia child support case Glenn's column New Study Punctures Myth of Uncaring Divorced Dad (Newsday, 6/23/03) Glenn's co-authored column New Study Shows Massachusetts' Child Support Guidelines Among Worst in Nation  (Massachusetts News, 7/28/04) Glenn's co-authored column Divorced from Reality on Child Support (Newark Star-Ledger, 9/6/02) His Side: Showdown in Motown: Michigan Dads vs. Leader of ACES (4/18/04) His Side: Child Support Civil Rights Violations (7/18/04) His Side: Do Men Gain Economically from Divorce? (2/29/04) His Side: The Degradation of LA's 'Deadbeat Dad Court' (8/24/03) His Side: Child Support System Abuses Drive Fathers out of Their Children's Lives (6/1/03) His Side with Glenn Sacks can be heard on WSNR AM 620 in New York City and North-Eastern New Jersey, and on WWZN AM 1510 in Boston on Sundays at 10 PM EST. The show can also be heard in Southern California on KTIE AM 590 at 5 PM PST. To listen live via the Internet from anywhere in the world, go to Listen Live. Both radio and Internet listeners are encouraged to call and participate in the show live and on the air at 1-877-590-KTIE (in California) or 1-800-439-4805 (out of state). All callers will be mailed a free CD of the show in which they appeared at their request. GlennSacks.com / HisSide.com

---

Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! – Get yours free!

Fwd:HIS SIDE" NY Fathers, Supporters Battle Leading Feminist Attorney on NY Family Law Crisis

Glenn Sacks <glenn@glennsacks.com> wrote:
Subject: NY Fathers, Supporters Battle Leading Feminist Attorney on NY Family Law Crisis
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:50:47 -0500

NY Fathers, Supporters Battle Leading Feminist Attorney on NY Family Law Crisis December 6, 2004 The archive of Sunday evening's show, NY Family Law: Justice or Bloodsport?, can be found here. The show is yet another example of what many of us have maintained for a long time--when fathers' supporters are able to debate the defenders of the current family law system in an open and fair forum, it quickly becomes clear that fathers have many legitimate grievances and irrefutable arguments. Melanie I. Cummings wrote an excellent letter to the New York Matrimonial Commission taking apart NOW's myth that New York fathers get custody 70% of the time when they fight for it--to read it, click here. Many New York activists are doing fine work on these issues, and I urge our New York listeners to support the efforts of The Coalition of Fathers and Families of New York--go to www.fafny.org or contact FaFNY VP Mr. Randall L. Dickinson at Dickins895@aol.com  / (518) 899-3302 or FaFNY coordinator Debbie Fellows at DAFellows2001@yahoo.com / (518) 381 6948. A new Seattle Post-Intelligencer article, More thirtysomethings are putting off the marital knot (12/2/04), speculates on the statistical trend towards later marriages. The reporter, Vanessa Ho, focuses on why women are hesitating to marry, ignoring the many reasons why men are increasingly turning their backs on marriage. In a column I co-authored a few years ago, Have Anti-Father Family Court Policies Led to a Men's Marriage Strike? (Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/5/02), we speculated that men's fear of losing their children and financial ruin in divorce were driving men away from marriage. The enormous reaction the piece generated, particularly after Rush Limbaugh read the piece on the air, certainly lends credence to the idea that men increasingly see marriage as a disadvantageous and even dangerous institution. Vanessa Ho also notes that "Societal pressures to marry before having children also have decreased, driving the unmarried percentage up," leading to a tripling of the rate of out of wedlock births over the past three decades. This problem--and some of the ways family law practitioners are aggravating it--is discussed in my co-authored column Undermining the American Family (Human Events, 1/27/03). As I mentioned last week, Verizon has informed His Side listeners and supporters that the "Homework" ad which was the subject of our protest will no longer be aired. We commend Verizon for understanding our concerns. It is our hope that, given the extensive publicity and support our campaign has received, Verizon and other companies will keep these concerns in mind when planning future advertising campaigns. Thanks to the thousands of you who called and wrote Verizon.  You can have CDs of all His Side shows for six months mailed to you by clicking here. David R. Burroughs, President of Fairhill Financial Services LLC, has been offering guidance to individual investors for 18 years. Dave specializes in working with individuals to develop a comprehensive investment plan that meets their short-term needs while building a nest egg for the future. He prides himself in providing personal service to his clients which includes ensuring clients know all the pluses and minuses of the investment options available to them. If you're looking to invest and you need a source for stocks, bonds or mutual funds, Dave Burroughs can be reached at 410-392-8244 or via his website here. Securities and advisory services offered through Commonwealth Financial Network, Member NASD, SIPC. A registered investment advisor. If you own a business or professional practice and are interested in advertising on the show, please contact Advertise@HisSide.com. To support the advertisers who support His Side, go to His Side Advertisers. As always, all information about the show can be found at HisSide.com. I welcome your comments and suggestions. Best Wishes, Glenn Sacks Listen to His Side with Glenn Sacks GlennSacks.com   NY Family Law: Justice or Bloodsport? The New York State National Organization for Women has declared a crisis for women in family law and made it the theme of their December 4-5 Annual Convention. According to NOW-NYS, the NY family court system "routinely deprives mothers and their children of their human and civil rights. These violations frequently result in mothers losing custody of their children to batterers, even in instances where there are outstanding allegations of child abuse...[the] court system allows batterers to destroy [mothers] financially through years of costly litigation, supervised visits, and related practices."  By contrast, fathers' groups view the NY family law system and its sole custody norm as bloodsport, where parents must fight like gladiators in a ring for custody in a match which is thoroughly rigged against dads. Between the New York State Matrimonial Commission hearings, a public re-examination of New York's fault-based divorce system, the high profile Bridget Marks case, the federal class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of noncustodial parents in New York and in dozens of other states, the NYS NOW convention, and others, New York family law is under scrutiny. Pioneer family law attorney Cecile C. Weich has represented women and championed feminist causes for over four decades. Family law attorney Michael Varble helps parents fight visitation interference and gain equal access to their children. Cecile and Michael joined Glenn on His Side with Glenn Sacks on December 5. To learn more about New York Family Law and family court bias, see: New York State National Organization for Women devotes conference to "family court system which routinely deprives mothers and their children of their human and civil rights" Feminist Renee Beeker's The Status of Women in the Family Law Arena, (NOW-NYS Reporter, Fall 2004) "State panel hears complaints about divorce laws, procedures: Fathers say courts biased against them" (Press & Sun-Bulletin, 10/30/04) Commissioner of the NYS Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance Robert Doar's testimony to the Matrimonial Commission of the NYS Office of Court Administration NOW-NYS President Kathryn Lake Mazierksi's testimony to the Matrimonial Commission of the NYS Office of Court Administration (NOW-NYS Reporter, Fall 2004) Melanie I. Cummings' letter to the NY Matrimonial Commission The Coalition of Fathers and Families of New York--www.fafny.org. Glenn's co-authored column Can Abolishing Sole Custody Curb Divorce? (New York Sun, 10/2/02) Glenn's column Convicted Murderess Can Get Custody but Decent Fathers Can't (Houston Chronicle, 9/19/03) Glenn's co-authored column Ruling in High-Profile Marks Custody Case: Painful but Correct (Men's News Daily, 9/14/04) Dr. Kathie Mathis' column Bridget Marks: When Courts Get It Wrong (NOW-NYS Reporter, Fall 2004). His Side: Allred vs. Tong--Is Parental Alienation Syndrome a Fathers' Rights Hoax? (6/27/04) His Side: Bridget Marks PAS/Custody Case (6/13/04) Glenn's radio commentary on the Bridget Marks case: "In Defense of Arlene Goldberg" His Side with Glenn Sacks can be heard on WSNR AM 620 in New York City and North-Eastern New Jersey, and on WWZN AM 1510 in Boston on Sundays at 10 PM EST. The show can also be heard in Southern California on KTIE AM 590 at 5 PM PST. To listen live via the Internet from anywhere in the world, go to Listen Live. Both radio and Internet listeners are encouraged to call and participate in the show live and on the air at 1-877-590-KTIE (in California) or 1-800-439-4805 (out of state). All callers will be mailed a free CD of the show in which they appeared at their request. GlennSacks.com / HisSide.com

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.

Not what the doctor ordered:The Pseudo-Science of Same-Sex Marriage

http://tanadineen.com/COLUMNIST/Columns/gaymarriagehealth.htm

 

The Pseudo-Science of Same-Sex Marriage

Not what the doctor ordered:

Psychologists aren't helping by trying to
turn a moral issue into a matter of mental health

August 11, 2004

Gay marriage is good for mental health -- well, if not yours, then at least for that of your gay friends and acquaintances. That's what the American Psychological Association, the world's largest association of psychologists, says. At their annual conference this summer, they passed a policy statement that same-sex couples should have the right to marry. Their reasoning goes something like this: "If it can't hurt and it might help, we'll support it." As for the "can't hurt" part, the APA calls on that good old incontestable word "research" to camouflage what would otherwise be recognized as mere opinion and wild speculation. Since legalizing same-sex marriage is something new, none of us can honestly claim to know the short-term effects -- let alone the long-term ones -- on couples, their children or society. But, as the APA puts it, psychological research, "provides no evidence to justify discrimination against same-sex couples." Or, in less formal language, if there is no "scientific" reason to be against it, then, hey, let's go for it. As for the "might help" argument, APA president Diane Halpern puts it best. She says that denying gays the right to marry "puts a particular stress on them just because of their sexual orientation. It's a health issue and a mental-health issue." In the psychologist's worldview, stress is ubiquitous. If a group that's in the majority experiences stress, it is called "life stress." If a minority group experiences it, it has another name: "minority stress." But whichever variety it is, psychologists believe stress is always bad. It's unhealthy and we must, according to current psychological wisdom, do whatever we can to eliminate it. So, if allowing gays to marry serves to reduce their stress level, it's good and we should all be saying "yes" to gay marriage. The American Psychological Association is saying this at a time when U.S. President George W. Bush is stomping across America championing "family values." That, in his conservative thinking, means saying "no" to same-sex marriage. Last week, Missouri voters did just that when they overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution barring such marriages, thus becoming the first state to do so. A dozen other states are preparing to vote on similar amendments. So why, I am wondering, would the APA take such a stance in this stormy political climate? Ms. Halpern herself acknowledged the riskiness of the move. We're going out on a limb," she said. The answer, I think, has nothing to do with mental health and everything to do with politics. Leading up to the last U.S. election, psychology clearly wanted Al Gore to win. While never officially endorsing the Democrats, they coached Gore around mental-health issues and they embraced his wife, Tipper, seeing her as the First Lady of Mental Health, someone sure to champion their causes whole-heartedly. But the shoe dropped, the chads hung and psychology's plans were cast into disarray. President Bush isn't psychology's ally. He openly favours faith-based initiatives over professional programs, arguing that faith can accomplish what secular programs can not. And he is undermining the control psychology has jealously held for decades over who can provide therapy and counselling. In A Charge to Keep, he writes that he "supports alternative licensing, so effective efforts aren't buried or compromised by government regulations." None of this is good for psychology's business. It seems that psychology, having no friend in the White House now and seeing that John Kerry has a chance of winning, has chosen to throw its lot with the Democratic challenger. Like Ronald Reagan Jr., when he stopped just short of taking a partisan stance by ending his speech at last month's Democratic National Convention with the words "vote for stem-cell research," psychologists have spoken out on an issue that aligns them with the Democrats. While Mr. Kerry doesn't personally approve of same-sex marriage, he doesn't oppose the notion of legalizing civil unions and he wants the issue to be decided by individual states. Ditto for the APA, which says it will work with "states and provinces to provide civil marriage and to recognize the parent rights of lesbians and gay men." Since the Democrats have historically been more in line than the Republicans with psychology's interests and initiatives -- whether they were supporting greater access to psychological services, counselling for the poor or drug-abuse treatment -- John Kerry is its better bet. The APA says its policy is in the public's best interest because legalizing same-sex marriage is good for the mental health of our society. But how can turning a moral and legal dilemma into a mental-health issue be genuinely helpful to anyone? Sure, those lobbying for legalizing same-sex marriage can now draw on this APA-sanctified "scientific" argument in favour of their cause. They can use that to shoot down the equally unscientific arguments that the proponents of traditional marriage throw at them, all that bogus research that supposedly shows that gay marriage is unhealthy. This "it's healthy versus it's unhealthy" bantering serves only to muddy the matter. Psychology could have done what it virtually never does -- point out that there is no real scientific evidence that favours either side and that psychologists should leave it to individuals and governments to struggle with the competing values of fairness and faith and with the social complexity that would come with adopting this new understanding of "marriage."

Printable Copy

Ottawa Citizen Aug. 11, 2004 Pg. A13

tanadineen.com
@ Dr.Tana Dineen
1998-2003

---

by Dr. Tana Dineen, special columnist,
The Ottawa Citizen

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

Pacific Island women and domestic violence

Intimate Partner Violence within a cohort of Pacific mothers living in New Zealand

Reducing violence by Pacific peoples has been identified by Pacific communities and government agencies as an important issue. However, there is little research into the nature of intimate partner relationships among Pacific families living in New Zealand.

This study reports the 12-month estimated prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) experienced by a cohort of Pacific mothers living in New Zealand. The Conflict Tactics Scale was completed by 1,095 women who had given birth in the past 12 months, and who were married or living with a partner as married.

The 12-month prevalence of “victimization” through verbal aggression was 77%, 21% for “minor” physical violence, and 11% for “severe” physical violence.

The 12-month prevalence of “perpetration” of verbal aggression against a partner was 90%, 35% for “minor” physical violence, and 19% for “severe” violence towards their partner.

Pacific Island women and domestic violence

Intimate Partner Violence within a cohort of Pacific mothers living in New Zealand

Reducing violence by Pacific peoples has been identified by Pacific communities and government agencies as an important issue. However, there is little research into the nature of intimate partner relationships among Pacific families living in New Zealand.

This study reports the 12-month estimated prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) experienced by a cohort of Pacific mothers living in New Zealand. The Conflict Tactics Scale was completed by 1,095 women who had given birth in the past 12 months, and who were married or living with a partner as married.

The 12-month prevalence of “victimization” through verbal aggression was 77%, 21% for “minor” physical violence, and 11% for “severe” physical violence.

The 12-month prevalence of “perpetration” of verbal aggression against a partner was 90%, 35% for “minor” physical violence, and 19% for “severe” violence towards their partner.

Fwd: EJF newsletter - Don't throw your crayons 11/5/04

EJF comments
From: "Dr. Charles E. Corry"
EJF newsletter - Don't throw your crayons 11/5/04

     The ridiculousness and stupidity of "domestic violence" laws continues to sink to new lows as witness the following story from Avon, in Eagle County, Colorado near Vail:

---

Avon school principal's husband arrested for throwing crayons

Abstracted from an article in the October 10, 2004, issue of Speakout!

Story by Mike Cacioppo and used with permission

According to a Town of Avon police report, Kimberly Walter, the principal of Meadow Mountain Elementary School, dialed 911 on October 4th and hung up. However, the police dispatcher sent an Avon cop to her home where she told Officer Jonathon Lovins that she and her husband, Richard, were having an argument about finances. According to Lovins' report, they "get into arguments about once a month."

According to the school district, Kimberly Walter earns approximately $70,938 annually, plus $12,059 in annual benefits. Plus, she recently received a check for approximately $9,000 from the school district's recent additional cost of living increase.

"Kimberly said the arguments sometimes get heated like this, but she just picks up the phone as if she is going to call 911, and that usually calms Richard down and ends the argument," Lovins wrote.

The report continued: "Kimberly said there was no hitting or pushing, but Richard did throw a box of crayons across the room."

The thrown crayons resulted in "minor crayon marks" about "5 to 6 inches above the table," according to Lovins' report.*

Lovins then walked Richard Francis outside the home and cuffed him before taking him to the Eagle County jail. **

"Kimberly was upset that I arrested Richard," Lovins wrote. "Kimberly told me that she would now never call 911, unless she was getting the crap beat out of her."

* The officer searched their home without a warrant.

** A warrantless arrest is mandatory when "probable cause" is found. At least a night in jail is required, with an average of 5 days, though we've heard of many cases where the man spends 15-26 days in jail in such cases before being given a hearing and allowed to bond out.

---

    In similar cases: From Naples, Florida, we hear of a man being arrested for DV after throwing a doughnut. From Rhode Island a police officer's wife tells us her next door neighbor was arrested on DV charges for flicking a cigarette butt to the ground in their driveway in a contemptuous manner in front of his wife.

    But Eagle County seems to be constructing a special niche for itself in male persecution, the Kobe Bryant case simply being the most famous one recently. Among many other inane cases, in 2000 an enamored swain took on some liquid courage in Avon with the intent of asking his girlfriend to marry him. Instead they got into a loud argument and the neighbors called the police, who then maced him, handcuffed him, beat him, and threw him down stairs (see Avon cops accused of abuse). In another case an Eagle County  woman had her boyfriend arrested and then went to visit him in jail the next day. The Eagle County DA then charged the man with violating a restraining order. And these are just a few of many such cases there.

      I often wonder about couples who have never so much as had a pillow fight, or thrown each other down on the bed or a couch and wrestled and made love. What sad relationships those must be! But now, of course, such fun and games are "domestic violence."

     One of the most astounding things, however, is how rare real violence is in "domestic violence" cases. Both defense and prosecution attorneys tell me that real violence only occurs in about 3% of the cases that come before the courts.

     Colorado, presently leading the nation, and likely the world, in draconian and insane laws against domestic violence, has just elected a Democratic House and Senate. One can reasonably predict even more totalitarian laws against men, marriage, and families in the coming two years as a result. Already restraining orders outnumber marriages in this state.

     I am left aghast at the folly of these laws and the representatives who pass them!

Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A. 

--  

Disclaimer

NOTE: If you would like to be removed from our mailing list please respond to this message with REMOVE in the subject line. Comments or criticisms of our policies or Web sites should be addressed to mailto:comments@ejfi.org.

     You are receiving this message because (1) you asked to be added to our mailing list; (2) you sent the EJF an e-mail or requested help from us; (3) you are known to work on issues related to men's or father's rights; (4) you are known to be interested in civil liberties and equal justice for all; (5) your name and address appeared as an addressee on email sent to us; or (6) you are a member of or contribute to the Equal Justice Foundation.

   The Equal Justice Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation supported by members and contributions. Dues are $25 per year and you may join at http://www.ejfi.org/Join.htm

    Contributions are tax deductible and can be made on the Web at http://www.ejfi.org/join2.htm or by sending a check to the address below.

    Federal employees in Colorado can contribute to the EJF through the Combined Federal Campaign. We are listed in all five Colorado regions and in the Denver region our agency number is 4086 and in the Pike's Peak region it is 6024.
    The mailing list of the Equal Justice Foundation is not distributed to third parties. Occasionally members are put in touch with other individuals on our mailing list when there are known common interests or problems. In normal circumstances permission is requested of the third party before disclosing their e-mail address. Prior permission is not sought if referral is made to another group or individual working on the same, or related problems, and that group or individual is known to seek such referrals.
______________________________________________

Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.
President, Equal Justice Foundation http://www.ejfi.org/
455 Bear Creek Road
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906-5820
Telephone: (719) 520-1089
Domestic violence against men in Colorado: http://www.dvmen.org
Personal home page: http://corry.ws

Curriculum vitae: http://www.marquiswhoswho.net/charleselmocorry/Default.aspx

The good men may do separately is small compared with what they may do collectively.

Benjamin Franklin

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com

Govt slammed for refusing DNA paternity tests

United Future MP Gordon Copeland today expressed his frustration and disappointment at the government’s steadfast refusal to use DNA-testing to prove paternity.
During debate in Parliament on the Care of Children Bill, Mr Copeland outlined a real-life case to the House.
“A young couple became the proud parents of a beautiful baby girl. Not only the mother and the father but also the maternal and paternal grandparents bonded with the child. She became the apple of their eye.
“However the story did not have a happy ending. A couple of years later, for whatever reason, the mother showed the father the door and wanted nothing more to do with him.
“The distraught father, wanting to maintain long-term contact with his daughter, sought access rights. The mother blocked this by suddenly, for the first time, claiming that he was not the little girl’s dad .
“This came as a huge shock, both to the father himself and to the paternal grandparents. They were grief-stricken at being cut off from all further contact with the child.
“More than three years later and in spite of a string of lawyers, the paternity or otherwise of the young man concerned has not been established because a DNA test involving the little girl can only be done with the consent of her mother.
- 1 -“This is an unmitigated tragedy for the grieving father and the grandparents and even more so, in time, for the child who may never get to find out who her real father actually is.
“Yet none of this need happen. A simple Family Court-ordered DNA test would establish paternity once and for all.
“We have a clear-cut means of establishing the truth in these kind of situations, but the government refuses steadfastly with incomprehensible reasons to go there. In doing so they fail the families of New Zealand.
“We have more than 19,000 birth certificates involving more than 30,000 children where the father’s name is not recorded and yet we have a scientific means at hand to clearly establish paternity.
“The particular instance I am describing represents the tip of an enormous iceberg, a systemic problem which becomes bigger by the day.
“Since I entered Parliament in 2002, together with my colleagues in United Future, we have consistently urged the government to follow the science so that truth replaces confusion, suspicion, dishonesty and the financial impropriety which flows from the current system, but the government continues to stonewall.
“It’s just not good enough,” said Mr Copeland.

Wedding Cake 

ha ha 

Protest at Counsel for Child Workshop

The New Zealand Law Society’s October 2004 Advanced Counsel for Child Workshop at Waipuna Lodge in Auckland was the target of a Union of Fathers protest last Monday.

Union of Fathers protesting in Auckland

Men have long complained that counsels for child often act as a second lawyer for the mother, and typically fail to protect the father/child relationship. Union of Fathers members say that the generous fees paid to lawyers who help remove fathers from families would be better utilised in mediation, conflict resolution and communication courses, and other interventions which aim to allow children continuing contact with both their parents following a relationship break-up.
One reporter from a local paper turned up to cover the protest, but as none of the superheros present were prepared to undertake dramatic or disruptive actions, television reporters were not interested. Fortunately, menz.org.nz has obtained video footage of the event for your entertainment:
Download Counsel for Child protest video here [486KB .wmv]

Outside the Auckland Court 

New option for custody possible

A pilot programme for parents involved in custody disputes is being launched, to allow families to appear before a mediator, rather than a judge.

The $1.5m trial will take place on Auckland's North Shore from February, for parents involved in custody, access and guardianship cases.

The Minister for Courts, Rick Barker, says at the moment parents who can't agree on custody arrangements have to appear before a Family Court judge. He says under the new system, parents will see a mediator, who will make a recommendation to the court on custody arrangements for the children.

Barker says this will speed up the process, and will be a less scary experience for children.

Family Court Scheme Could Be Success

The Union of Fathers believes a new Family Court pilot scheme will be a huge success, if it is well resourced.

A non judge-led mediation service is being trialled to resolve custody and access issues on Auckland's North Shore.

Union of Fathers spokesman Jim Bagnall says it is critical highly skilled mediators are used, so parents understand what is best for their children.

Mr Bagnall says interest in the pilot is huge because New Zealanders want change in the Family Court.

Pilot scheme should be more successful

There are hopes a pilot scheme for resolving child custody issues will be more successful than the current system.

Early next year families on Auckland’s North Shore will be given the option of accepting mediation not led by a judge.

Courts Minister Rick Barker says currently families referred to mediation can wait weeks or even months to be appointed a Family Court judge.

He says this way, properly trained mediators can speed up the process and help families find their own solutions.