Stretching the Meaning of Sexual Harassment.

[blackice]

For the record here is the complete "Ontario Hansards" record of the debate of bill 117. Oh look The Honourable Senator Anne C. Cools was there my my . For those who do not know Hansards is an unedited public record of governement debates and sessions...

http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/37_p....htm#P278_91700

Which is now law...

http://www.ontla.on.ca/Documents/St...UT/b117ra_e.htm

For the record "Spouse" means:

Applicants

2. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the following persons may apply for an intervention order or an emergency intervention order:

1. A spouse or former spouse, within the meaning of Part III of the Family Law Act, of the respondent.

2. A same-sex partner or former same-sex partner, within the meaning of Part III of the Family Law Act, of the respondent.

3. A person who is cohabiting with the respondent, or who has cohabited with the respondent for any period of time, whether or not they are cohabiting at the time of the application.

4. A person who is or was in a dating relationship with the respondent.

5. A relative of the respondent who resides with the respondent.

For the record:

3. Requiring the respondent to vacate the applicant’s residence, either immediately or within a specified period of time.

8. Granting the applicant exclusive possession of the residence shared by the applicant and the respondent, regardless of ownership.

9. Requiring the respondent to pay the applicant compensation for monetary losses suffered by the applicant or any child as a direct result of the domestic violence, the amount of which may be summarily determined by the court, including loss of earnings or support, medical or dental expenses, out-of-pocket expenses for injuries sustained, moving and accommodation expenses and the costs, including legal fees, of an application under this Act.

10. Granting the applicant or respondent temporary possession and exclusive use of specified personal property.

In short if you are dating someone and can not prove they do not reside with you or that your possessions are yours (as if that matters) they now own it once the "applicant" makes the claim and enacts the "emergency order" based on you guessed it a statement period...

Posted again must have been the spam yup all lies

[Dis]

they probably would spay us.

but guess what. It's a man's world. We control nearly everything. It's not worth getting in a hissy fit when women don't like men making Monica Lewinsky jokes. If they don't like those jokes then we won't make them.

It's not worth men getting upset over this. This is a very small fringe of feminism. In fact recently there has been a division among the feminist ranks. They have no power any more. Are ya happy now?

I can't say how it is in Canada. But where I live we have no major custody problems. And when there is the men usually complain to the press about them, and something gets done.

[blackice]

Can you prove that as fact my bet is you can't and won't laws there are no different in many ways take just a sample:


Tennessee Shared Parenting Bill Could
Help Children, Reduce Divorce

By Glenn J. Sacks

When Angeliek Green sang lullabies to her baby girls, she caressed their foreheads and told them "mommy will always be there for her little angels. Always." She was wrong.
"I cry every night over my children," she says. "Every time I see kids in a park with their parents, or playing in a yard as I drive home from work, the wound is opened all over again."
Fifteen years ago, under pressure because of finances and personal problems, Green ceded custody of her two daughters to her ex-husband. She says:
"I thought that as a noncustodial parent [NCP] I would still have the right to be a part of their lives. It was the worst mistake of my life."
The last decade and a half has been a nightmare for Green as she has been at the mercy of an ex-husband who has disappeared with the girls for years at a time, and a vindictive stepmother who has successfully turned the girls against their mother.
Green's anguish is experienced by hundreds of thousands of NCPs across the country. Their grievances include: blocked visitation and unenforced visitation orders; "move away" spouses who use geography as a method of driving NCPs out of their children's lives; acceptance by the courts of false and/or uncorroborated accusations as a basis for denying custody or even contact between parent and child; rigid, excessive, and often punitive child support awards; a "win/lose" system which pits ex-spouses against one another by designating a custodial and a noncustodial parent; courts which in determining custody tilt heavily towards the parent who initiates the divorce, thus encouraging each parent to "strike first"; burdensome legal costs; and judicial preference for mothers over fathers as custodial parents.
The solution to the problem now lies before the Tennessee State legislature. Tennessee HB2338 / SB2406, known as the "Shared Parenting Bill," abolishes the concept of child custody and gives equal standing to both parents in a divorce. In the event that divorcing parents are unable to agree on a shared parenting plan, the bill would instruct the courts to "order a custody arrangement with the primary residential designation alternating between parents" and would require that the residential designation "reflect a substantially equal schedule" between the mother and the father. The legislation, sponsored by sponsored by state Rep. Kathryn Bowers (D-Memphis) and state Sen. Ron Ramsey (R-Blountville), allows judges to deviate from this equal arrangement only if one of the parents has committed acts which render he or she unfit, such as child abuse or domestic violence.
According to Dianna Thompson, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC), the bill "will ensure that children continue to have an ongoing emotional, physical, and financial relationship with both of their parents following a divorce or separation." She says:
"Currently, we have a very adversarial court system, and destructive custody battles are largely driven by the parents' fear that they will be expelled from their children's lives. By replacing winners and losers with equals, the Shared Parenting legislation takes a lot of the anger and conflict out of divorce."
Advocates of the bill emphasize that it will lower the divorce rate, since parents won't be rewarded by the courts for being the first one to terminate a struggling relationship. In addition, they say, it encourages cooperation and even reconciliation because each parent knows that, barring proof of abuse, they will not be able to drive the other parent out of their children's lives. In fact, studies have shown that states with egalitarian custody laws have lower divorce rates than "win/lose" states like Tennessee. And because the bill leaves few legal issues for parents to fight over, instead of spending thousands of dollars on court and legal fees, divorcing parents can spend the money on their children.
Melanie Mays, a Memphis mother of two and a member of Child's Best Interest, the nonprofit group which sponsored the legislation, believes that Tennessee's children need the Shared Parenting Bill. She says:
"It's shameful what our current system is doing to our children. I see good, decent parents, usually fathers, being locked out of their children's lives. It's as if they are being thrown away. I see children who love and need both parents and can't understand why they can't see the noncustodial parent. It's a horror, and it needs to be changed."

https://www.GlennJSacks.com

Just a small sample very tinnie minute so small other states make this "possible" advance look like a monument to mankind. You too seem to know nothing about any of the facts yet debunk them as you go based on your own bias. Myths motivate thoughts facts change them...Yup sure seems like YOU have no problems at all...yup appears women in this case are speaking up, you should check out what the mens groups in the area have to say about the "fair" and "just" laws you have er VAWA as an example...read it take a breath first you'll need it...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Tingkai
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.

While you are correct that this is a poor argument from the author of the article, it is nonetheless correct. MacKinnon has stated in the past that all sexual contact at the workplace is sexual haressment. She is being disengenuous if she says she never supported that position. Her ally, Andrea Dworkin has gone further, at one time stating, "all sex is rape." (I do not, here, wish to state that MacKinnon is guilty by association, but rather show an extreme version of this ideology, although, in fact, both MacKinnon and Dworkin have extremely Victorian views on sexual relationship--women must be protected from men--they also do not represent much of the mature feminist movement. Using them to bash feminism is like using Pat Robertson to bash all Christianity)

If MacKinnon no longer adhere's to these views, great. We should not berate her for her past views, but neither should we defend her unconditionally.

[blackice]

Exactly someone is reading cudos

Now check out the power those two women have and thier influence on laws and lawmakers...let alone the misandary they promote they are in the postion to make thier dreams come true...until challenged on all fronts. This is not mainstream news people...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by blackice
For the record here is the complete "Ontario Hansards" record of the debate of bill 117. Oh look The Honourable Senator Anne C. Cools was there my my . For those who do not know Hansards is an unedited public record of governement debates and sessions...

http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/37_p....htm#P278_91700

I tried this link and it doesn't work. Maybe there is something wrong with my computer.

Then I searched the Hansards for the name "Anne Cools". Nothing came up relating to Bill 117
Anyone else want to try:

http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/

Very interesting.

[blackice]

By gosh your right my all to co-operating whipping post

When I copied and pasted the post I made, it did not copy the url right...something to remember. You can find the original one a spam or two back but for you hummmm here it is....
All fun aside READ IT then act like and ass Oh and if you noticed her site was not complete...Of course you did....

http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/37_parl/session1/Committees/justice/J027.htm#P278_91700

[faded glory]

to whom it doesnt concern ignore.....


bi can you please answer my Q's on the NEW Internet ranking thread. Thanks. I want to know more about the month of war thingy.

[Tingkai]

Congrats, Blackice. You're now batting one in 20. That's pretty pathetic for a guy who claims that he has studied this issue for five years.

Getting one thing right does not make you an expert and it hardly makes up for the old lies and new mistakes, (deliberate distortion of the facts?) that you are making.

Lets rip apart your latest propaganda. (Yeah, I know, this is like shooting fish in the barrel, but Blackice seems to enjoy having himself shown to be a fool.)

Originally posted by blackice
In short if you are dating someone and can not prove they do not reside with you or that your possessions are yours (as if that matters) they now own it once the "applicant" makes the claim and enacts the "emergency order" based on you guessed it a statement period...

Wrong. The Domestic Violence Prevention Act specifically states:
"an intervention order or an emergency intervention order does not in any manner affect the title to or an ownership interest in any real or personal property jointly held by the applicant and respondent or solely held by one of them.

Furthermore, the courts would have to be satisfied that the women lives where she claims to live. This would require testimony of a police officer or some other proof (e.g. mail with addresss). The burden of proof is not on the respondent.

Originally posted by blackice
3. Requiring the respondent to vacate the applicant’s residence, either immediately or within a specified period of time.

Note that if a woman seeks a court order this means that a man would have to leave the women's residence.

Anyone object to that? Other than Blackice of course.

This law allows the courts to issue an emergency order without the accused being in the court. If, and only if, the following three things have occurred:
(a) domestic violence has occurred;
(b) a person or property is at risk of harm or damage; and
(c) the matter must be dealt with on an urgent and temporary basis for the protection of the person or property that is at risk of harm or damage.

Note that if (a) occurs, but not (c) then an emergency order cannot be granted.

If an order is granted, the law guarantees the accused a full hearing, where the accused would be present, within 14 to 44 days.

So, if a man is accused of domestic violence, he is guaranteed his right to present his side of the case in court. And Blackice wants to compare men to the Jews who were hauled away and murdered by the Nazis. Give us a break.

Give it up Blackice. Your messages simply dig yourself deeper into the hole and show that you are a fool.

[Urban Ranger]

I am still waiting for blackice to respond to my first post in this thread

[blackice]

Sure tomorrow spam man

Right now sleep lots of it you see no court tomorrow. My lawyer called the flakes want out heh it appears all the lies have cought up with someone. I will sleep peacefully knowing my child will not cry next time I see her as she will be here with me. She has been crying ever since this bs started all she wants to to come home with Daddy.

It appears being honest and not abusing the laws to take advantage of an on going custody situation pays off....bs "super dad" status it what you need here. It appears after 6-7 months of supervised access in front of a two way mirror, taped, video taped, monitored and generally feeling like a criminal because someone said what they wanted too...

Has proved according to the reports I am a "super Dad" Quote: " We see and have seen no reason what so ever for him to be here" "He on a scale of 1-10 is a 12 father" "He has shown that from the first visit" Now why was I there I ask?

Oh ya the laws the lies the complete lack of investigation to alligations. Not to mention the obvious bias for instance "if he hits his girlfriend he must hit his kids" but of course when they got hold of the police reports and realized she was lying they said this "when they took her away for abuse he must of caused it" and when they realized it was myself and my daughter that had been assulted they said this " he only babysits the child he must have started it" And when they ordered her to abuse anger management courses I was on supervised access and she had custody. And when they heard her claim she beats the kids and gets so mad she backsout and does not know which child she hits. I was on supervised access. And when they (500 pages of reports) realized they fu**ed up they refused to back down and kept me on supervised access. And when charges of child abuse against them came from the child avocacy and pressure from the attorney generals office and the MCSS they said lets talk. Yup just a bit of MY X stories

Amazing how this type of state sponsored child abuse goes on without so much as a wimper from the general masses. Oh well it appears in this case at least the child will win...These flakes even want to pay me hush money F***em comes to mind. I have yet to take them to task, bright side Boo will be home in days YES!

[blackice]

Other than Blackice of course

I did? more bs keep going.

Lets rip apart your latest propaganda.

oh you mean the act that to your inept google search you claim to be a bill? Or I know the part about Cools no maybe you mean...yourself that's it isn't it

Furthermore, the courts would have to be satisfied that the women lives where she claims to live. This would require testimony of a police officer or some other proof (e.g. mail with addresss). The burden of proof is not on the respondent.

This is good I have some swamp you er good land you could buy
Ok dutz lets spell this out for you she is staying with you ok? When the police show up she says she lives there and? I guess the police say ok or do they INVESTIGATE it is her word you fool Ok phase two now that you do live there you have mail sent there I mean you have 14 days minimum plus adjournments you simply have no idea of what goes on at all none no iota zilch nadda. You my friend better wake up you are a sucker waiting for a life sentence amazing...My god you ****er custody battles and such take two years minimum your knoledge superseeds your stupidity by miles...In the wrong direction

"an intervention order or an emergency intervention order does not in any manner affect the title to or an ownership interest in any real or personal property jointly held by the applicant and respondent or solely held by one of them.

Reaching for straws you make it seem as if it can not happen it does nice try. I will make clear the emergentcy is just the begining the fact remains you can lose it all...I think I said that no?Yes Now lets get back to proving your innocent and losing it all if you can not what a putz you are

So, if a man is accused of domestic violence, he is guaranteed his right to present his side of the case in court. And Blackice wants to compare men to the Jews who were hauled away and murdered by the Nazis. Give us a break.

Nope you have the ayrian fixation remember...Your cut and paste defence is tiresome cut and paste the whole act The point is you have no house no kids been in jail etc wohoo I get to PROVE my innocence in a few years great thanks for putting that in clear light You simply miss the point do you honestly believe your day in court is it you are something read the reports these things go on forever what a shumk

Note that if a woman seeks a court order this means that a man would have to leave the women's residence.

Yes a good thing if in fact the court order was done in good faith and visa vie. You are missing the entire reason for the stink this law is ABUSED and can be ABUSED without repercussions....

Give it up Blackice. Your messages simply dig yourself deeper into the hole and show that you are a fool.

You have this habit of playing that role I will leave that to your obvious EXPERTISE. I must say you do it better than anyone I have seen yet

Have you tried dental floss? between the ears I mean You have said nothing at all. You cut a paste exerpts of an act with no proof what so ever of what you say is true or the true reality of the situation. I mean really I can not even compliment your debating skills anymore. So How did your x lose the kids anyway listening to your advise? Seriously when the odds are obviously in favor of the women (you must see that) explain what went wrong. personally I think you are full of s*it but maybe....

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by blackice
oh you mean the act that to your inept google search you claim to be a bill?

I've never claimed any act is a bill. You're the one that claims that refers to Bill 117 as if it was law when in fact it became the Domestic Violence Protection Act is called the VAWA.

Originally posted by blackice
When the police show up she says she lives there and? I guess the police say ok or do they INVESTIGATE it is her word.

No, the police would look for signs that she lived there (e.g. clothes). So if you are living by yourself and the woman doesn't have any belongings in the house, then the cops would not accept her word for it.

I can't believe that I have to explain this to you.

I expect that your next post will claim that the police have all been brainwashed by the evil cabel of Feminists.

Originally posted by blackice
Ok phase two now that you do live there you have mail sent there I mean you have 14 days minimum plus adjournments you simply have no idea of what goes on at all none no iota zilch nadda.

Oh yeah, that would fool the judge, and your lawyer.

Originally posted by blackice
The fact remains you can lose it all...I think I said that no?Yes

Oh well, if you said it then it must be true, despite the fact that the Act specifically says you are wrong. But hey, Ontario courts are not governed by laws, they are governed by the words of Blackice.

Originally posted by blackice
You simply miss the point do you honestly believe your day in court is it

Oh, you're right. Men's voices are never heard in the legal system. That's why you'll never get custody of your kids. Oh, wait. You did get custody of your child. Guess they must have thought you were a woman.

Originally posted by blackice
You are missing the entire reason for the stink this law is ABUSED and can be ABUSED without repercussions....

More propaganda. Baseless lies. Bill 117 became an act in Dec. 2000. Shows us the proof that this Act has been abused. Where's the proof?

Originally posted by blackice
So How did your x lose the kids anyway

Simple. Her second husband testified against her. The friends of her second husband testified against her. The first husband testified against her. She lost.

It just proves that the legal system works both ways. Sometimes the man loses. Sometimes the women loses.

So Mr. "I've been studying for five years so I'm the Expert," here's a question for you. How come almost everything you post is wrong? Time and time again, you have posted incorrect information that has been proven false. Why don't you just admit that you are wrong.

[Flubber]

blackice

of everything you have poseted I can agree with the following

1. there do remain some biases against men but they are largely the same societal biases that see more women than men stay home with the kids when the couple is together-- generally the primary caregiver before the breakup wins custody

2. Any "emergency" remedy can be subject to abuse and yes, an innocent father can be summarily removed from his home.

However, this legislation is a reaction to the situation where a truly powerless woman with kids could not afford to move out (perhaps hubby controls the money) and needs to end a truly abusive situation. Any test must balance the interests of of protecting people against the interest of remaining in the home. Whether you like it or not, a court will be more concerned about protecting possible abuse victims-- and some abuse is real-- early in my career I acted on a couple of child apprehensions. Reading the file ( and then seeing the photos) . . . lets just say there are some sick people out there.

But know something . . . the system does come to a just solution in the majority of cases. Are there wrong decisions, abuse and sometimes heartache ?-- yup, I'll agree with that. But the system works reasonably well in a majority of cases. . . and it EVENTUALLY reaches the correct result in a vast majority of cases. the problem to be solved is those situations where it does not work


______

The personal story you relate, if accurate, would give you great cause to question the system and even to be a bit bitter . . . Any father in the circumstance you relate . . .wow

However, despite your study of the issue, most of your legal conclusions are just wrong, wrong wrong. First of all, most judges would not give an exclusive possession order for a non-owned property unless there were children involved. Its just simpler to have the woman move out. So your suggestion that some woman you are dating will LEGALLY take your property is wrong and ridiculous. Really, do you think that a 2 week live-in girlfriend will get to take your house ?? get serious !!

Criminal law -- none of these are provisions are criminal law but there can be overlap between the federal criminal law and the provincial regulatory offences in just the same way that a traffic offence can be punished provincially under their regulatory regime as well as federally under the Criminal Code.

There are so many errors among your other legal assertions and its late . . so I will wait until tomorrow to see what else you come up with

[Tingkai]

DP