Stretching the Meaning of Sexual Harassment.

[blackice]

http://mensrights.bizhosting.com/

http://www.womensfreedom.org/artic522.htm

They are at it again... my guess is half the male population has no idea of the radicle laws changing and or have changed to enable you to be arrested without rights and justice....

[Gibsie]

Surely sexual harassment laws apply equally to men and female though...

Anyway, summarize please! More than feminisn is evil, please

[blackice]

Many laws are biased against men as a result of feminist pressure. Fathers Rights, child access rights, harassment, DV, the list goes on ... In essence the legal systems have simply deprived men of a voice. So equality it is not as for summarizing generally I leave that up to the reader, like a good book.

I am involved in the undo process so my opinions would be somewhat bias. As far as all feminists oh no not all just the ones with the power the voice and the hatred of men in general the one's "Spreading Misandry" ...

[Urban Ranger]

If you don't like it, organise a group to fight this "injustice" you perceive.

Anyway, they aren't getting any support from the mainstream feminism supporters.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by blackice
Many laws are biased against men as a result of feminist pressure. Fathers Rights, child access rights, harassment, DV, the list goes on ... In essence the legal systems have simply deprived men of a voice.

You have to be more specific than just a brief list. Why is such-and-such prejudiced against men? Is this prejudice real or percived?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by blackice
In essence the legal systems have simply deprived men of a voice.

What a load of BS. The court system allows men and women to state their case. Usually the woman ends up with custody of a child, but not always.

Here's a real life case (involves an ex-girlfriend). She gets married young and has a kid then gets divorce. She gets custody, mainly because the father doesn't have a full-time job. She gets remarried, then divorced again. The father goes to court to get custody. HE WINS. Why? Because the child says he wants to live with his dad. She ends up paying child support.

So Blackice, spare us the new age men's movement jargon ("undo process" ) and propaganda.

Consider the linked article. It refers to a law professor Catherine MacKinnon who apparently was instrumental in advancing sexual harassment laws.

"MacKinnon summarily denied that she promoted the idea that all sex at the workplace constitutes sexual harassment. Instead, she insisted that she has always supported the proposition that workplace sex has to be "unwelcome" in order to be considered harassing. "

The writer of the article then claims that MacKinnon is lying:
"Maybe even MacKinnon understands the extremism of her views and doesn't want to show her hand until she has pushed the law incrementally to where there's no turning back."

Yet, the writer provides no proof that MacKinnon is lying. In other words, MacKinnon says I don't believe in this, and the writer responds, yes you do.

This is the type of BS that undermines legitimate concerns about the legal system.

[blackice]

Examples of the erosion of men's rights include the little known fact that in the UK a man is now OFFICIALLY assumed GUILTY in a rape case in which sex can be proven to have occured. It matters not if the "victim" is your wife or girlfriend, it matters not if she gave her consent or if you can prove WHY she wishes to inflict a court case upon you - it is now up to YOU to PROVE consent.

Yes, you have to prove you are innocent.

In Canada feminists were able to push through a law entitled "The Violence Against Women Act" (VAWA). This law means that any women that you have simply dated, even if just the once, can literally pick up a phone, claim to be "in fear" of you and the anti-patriarchal state will, with no trial nor presumption of innocence, throw you in jail whilst all your assets are transferred into her name, including your home. You are then released under a restraining order to keep you away from "her" (your) own property. Breaking that restraining order is a criminal offence and you will be thrown back in jail for a long time. Any outstanding debts such as rent on your home or insurance, you are still required to pay. Remember she only has to "prove" that she's scared, no offence need occur, no witnesses, no evidence, nothing.

I can go on quite endlessly in the last example is how most men are deprived of their children in family court matters.
Percieved or real you be the judge most of us (thousands actually that have formed groups are fighting for rights most men obviously have no idea they have lost.

This example I posted here is just but one. As for not adheared to by most feminists yes your right but the feminist's changing these laws seem not to need "most feminist's" to do it as in the above examples.

[Gibsie]

Err, could you please post some evidence of what you just claimed about the UK? The conviction rate for rape is incredibly low, so until I see some evidence, then I'm going to have to point at you... and laugh. Yes.

[Tingkai]

Blackice: I did a google search and found no reference to a Canadian Violence Against Women Act. There is some reference to an American law with that name.

Unless you can provide links with reference to the Canadian law, I will have to assume that your information is incorrect.

[blackice]

Tingkai you seem to talk out of your er alot 89% of all men lose custody of their children you know one I am happy for him as are others. The above examples show the foolishness of an ill informed opinionated person such as yourself. The harm being done is by idiots like you who think they know something based on one possible fact. Cas in Ontario as an example 87% of all men reporting abuse to their children or being reported lose custody of thier children, that fact is from the attorney generals report slamming CAS around the country. Until you have some education in the facts you will continue to make a fool of yourself. Your choice of course.

Your type of BS that undermines legitimate concerns about the legal system. Legitimate concerns for the laws are based on facts many facts not I know a guy who... what a moron

MY REAL LIFE CASE and thousands of others do not add up to your I know a guy I have been studing this and invovled in this for 5 years YOU?

[Tingkai]

Blackice, you really need to learn how to type.

And you're becoming predictably boring.

You post a message claiming there is some evil Canadian law, and when challenged on whether that law exists, you respond with personal insults.

Then you throw up more "statistics." Ya, sure we're going to believe you.

[blackice]

heh you have offered nothing what so ever hummm. I guess that sums it up he who knows nothing says nothing thanks for the real life example of that fact ignorance is bliss you seem to be a very happy person

Not personal insults like typing and english no personal observations like ignorance and bliss

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by blackice
heh you have offered nothing what so ever hummm. I guess that sums it up he who knows nothing says nothing thanks for the real life example of that fact ignorance is bliss you seem to be a very happy person

1) He isn't the one making claims.

2) He cited a personal experience, among other things.

[blackice]

Not sure if you are refering to me if so read again He "claims" a guy he knows. I state personal involvement and studies of the facts for five years,,, :hummm:

[blackice]

VAWA in Canada is known as bill 117 enacted in 2000 do your homework.

http://home.golden.net/~sweb/abuse/pg6.html

Senator Anne Cools:

Honourable members, I would like to conclude by saying that Bill 117 seeks to deny women's violence. It cloaks women in innocence, and vests mere allegations of domestic violence with aspects of criminal findings, while it stealthily vests the accuser with new property entitlements and also new child custody and access entitlements. It then attempts, under the disguise of a prohibition, to vest the accuser with a potential immunity, by section 16, from prosecution for perjury. This extraordinary power is legislatively achieved by virtue of a novel judicial order call[ed] an intervention order, sometimes obtained without notice, which can then oust--the bill says "prevail," but in parliamentary language the term is "oust"--orders made under the Divorce Act, the Family Law Act and the Children's Law Reform Act. As I said before, such a judicial order, such a power, is unknown to the law in Canada. Further, no provincial statute can oust the Divorce Act. That is a jurisdictional question that was raised earlier.

This bill is a monumental foray into criminal law. Simultaneously, it lacks the protection of due process and the higher standard of the burden of proof required by criminal law. It lacks the protection owed to one accused of violence. Violence is clearly an offence in criminal law, not civil. In addition, by subsection 1(2), the definition of "domestic violence" is so broad, contrary to our constitutional framework, which usually requires that offences be defined precisely and narrowly. Further, subsection 1(3) tells us that on a balance of probabilities, a finding of domestic violence can be made without a criminal investigation, without a criminal finding or without a criminal test of credibility, and even sometimes without a police investigation.

Bill 117 is about criminal law and the consequential forfeiture of and the creation of new property rights. As a consequence of allegations of crime made and found without criminal due process, the ancient law of forfeiture is revived. An accused forfeits property rights and cedes them to an accuser. This legal scheme, as I said before, is unknown to constitutional governance in Canada. I think the committee and the Attorney General should exercise some pause and some caution and slow this bill down, receive counsel and find out exactly what is going on in this bill.

My worry about this bill is that it will not do very much to protect genuine victims who are in pain and anguish and who are suffering, and will do a lot to strengthen opportunities for what I would call unscrupulous individuals who will want to use the law in some unscrupulous way.

The heart of darkness, as I said before, that results in the twin tragedies of murder and suicide--and let us remember that suicide, after all, is self-murder--needs light. It really needs very serious study and needs a lot of light. I would submit to you that it needs no additional darkness.

I have spent my life working on this subject matter. I know a lot about domestic violence and I know a lot about human beings when they are wrapped in these conflicts, buttressed quite often by hosts of other entanglements and pathologies. I would also submit to you that there are many different forms of domestic violence. The most frightening and the most terrifying form of domestic violence is the one where, unfortunately, within all of these other conflicts, homicidal or suicidal impulses also come into play. I tell you, I mean it when I say this is the heart of darkness. I thank you.

The conclusions of the passing of this act are horrific it has been used exactly as she predicted. The statistics also conclude that men have been the victim of this law endlessly.