Stretching the Meaning of Sexual Harassment.

[drake]

I won't get into this argument....but certainly we can all admit that sexual harrassment isn't a two way street. There's all sorts of double standards.

A woman accuses a man of harrassment, and guilty or not, the mans probably going to lose his job. The reverse happens and it will probably be blown off. A man could even recieve ridicule for saying a woman harrassed him.

[Flubber]

Blackice

I will not deny that there is favoritism toward women in custody cases by a LOT of judges. For years it was even an entrenched legal doctrine that younger children are usually better with their mothers " the tender years doctrine"

But blackice, your statistics and the bill you cite were both misleading. When you say that 89 % of men lose custody, that would not be consistent in most people's minds with 30% getting joint custody. More accurate would be to say that only 11% get sole custody .

As for the Bill you cite, Bill 117, tingkai correctly pointed out that it was provincial legislation and as such it is NOT criminal law. You are correct that several provinces have similar provisions but you are wrong in that they are universally reffered to as VAWA-- in fact the most common terms are "domestic protection order" , "family protection order", "possession order" or "intervention order" since in most cases these provisions have been incorporated as part of family law or matrimonial property legislation.

You quoted the following (did not see the source)

quote:

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.


Might I just say -- Bull***t

There is NO WAY, NO HOW that your assets are transferred in that manner to your 10 year live in girl-friend-- let alone someone you DATED ONCE.

The impact of the provision is a possession order for the home or other assets. The idea is that during a breakup it takes time to settle property issues and it can SOMETIMES be dangerous for the couple to remain in the same house. Do judges sometimes grant these on little evidence? Perhaps unfortunately but yes . I believe for better or for worse, most judges tend to err on the side of believing the complainant.

But fault in a divorce or relationship (other than wasting of assets) should not have ANY impact on the division of assets. So a CONVICTED wife-beater would still be entitled to their equal share when the accounting is done. If one spouse gets "possession " of an asset and uses it up , that counts against that spouse in the division . ( Sometimes not much of a remedy if there are few assets)


I can understand you anger at the system as there remain many inherent biases but I tend to think that the biases in the court system tend to reflect those in society as a whole. People on average still are more likely to think of a mother staying home with the kids rather than a father. It may not be right but it is the case.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Well this is certainly interesting.

Bill 117 is an Government of Ontario Bill. Anne Cools is a federal senator. So why is Cools making a speech in the Canadian senate about a bill being considered by the Ontario government?

For those of you who are not Canadian, provincial laws are created by provincial governments. The Canadian senate only addresses federal laws. So it is unlikely that Cools would be making a speech about Bill 117 because this bill is outside her jurisdiction.

I checked Senator Cools site and the speech listed by Blackice is not on the site. Very curious.

Here's a link for those interested in the Bill 117.

http://www.newswire.ca/government/on.../19/c5062.html

Everything you state is substantially correct except it appears the speech was made before the Ontario committee reviewing the bill. I know that committees can hear from outsiders if they wish and I do not believe it is unheard of for a federal politician (particularly a senator with a life tenure) to express their views . I can only presume (if the site is not totally bogus) that some senator decided to speak before the committee on a topic of concern to her.

[blackice]

There is NO WAY, NO HOW that your assets are transferred in that manner to your 10 year live in girl-friend-- let alone someone you DATED ONCE.

That is how it is written yes...

As for the Bill you cite, Bill 117, tingkai correctly pointed out that it was provincial legislation and as such it is NOT criminal law.

The majority of the arguement is in fact it is NOT criminal law. it is civil law yet has criminal concequences... Simliar to this is the "dead beat dad" laws they infact jail someone for a debt. In the States this has been successfully agrued against I am not sure of the name but I think you can not be jailed for a civil offence like being in debt as civil law and criminal law are quite different. So what we have is an unproven aligation and action explain to me where while walking down the street and a person said "he did it" and you lose your right to go home, jailed and have your children taken away in one fell swoop anyone...

I know as I was accused of DV by my x and lost my child for 6 months...heh she even said I was arrested and jailed for it. So in good "legal" fashion my child and I were separated for the first time since birth WITHOUT INVESTIGATION. I raised my child until then now she lives with the x goes to school there and my child and I get supervised access. Neat I guess that is fair right? Now the agentcy invovled after great expense says oh your right she lied charges against her hahaha right, legal recourse you have to be kidding. Lets go back to status quo the child now lives with the mother and goes to school there. I seem to have become the "uncle" lost all my rights made it too the AR why a lie...OH please make more laws like this one:roll eyes:Or better yet amend them on the word of Misandry driven womens groups...

Beyond that is presumed innocence which bill 117 takes away. BTW bill 117 is the changes to the divorce act, it also incorporates the "child protection act" the "family law act" in it's interpretation. So while yes it is a bill that has passed and is now part of the dva... http://www.karenselick.com/CL0103.html one lawyers point of view...

I will not deny that there is favoritism toward women in custody cases by a LOT of judges. For years it was even an entrenched legal doctrine that younger children are usually better with their mothers " the tender years doctrine"

Still is and that is the problem...a lot most all is an understatement.

But blackice, your statistics and the bill you cite were both misleading. When you say that 89 % of men lose custody, that would not be consistent in most people's minds with 30% getting joint custody. More accurate would be to say that only 11% get sole custody.

As explained a break down of the facts will show that while "joint custody" is a fact so is the "primary residence clause"
This is usually 90% of the time handed to the women. The statistics are misleading but not mine...Joint custody on the average lasts until one or the other get married in most cases I will dig up the stats the woman will initiate full custody after two years or when the child goes to school. The primary residence clause allows what is called "status quo" That being since the mother had the primary residence that will remain at that point the man becomes the uncle again NOT the joint custody parent. The break down on the remaining 10% of men can be summed up real easy most are by default, the mother has died and or jailed and or incompetent or unfit as a parent. So while we cellabrate this 10% understand it is not a huge victory nor is "join custody" thus 89%...

I can understand you anger at the system as there remain many inherent biases but I tend to think that the biases in the court system tend to reflect those in society as a whole.

I whole heartedly disagree 50% of the population are men and I assure you most do not like their kids taken away from them...A large portion of mothers do not like the idea of their children without a dad. The large majority of women do not want thier sons treated this way. A large majority of Grandparents who have no rights at all are against losing what little rights they have being the parents of the man and not seeing their grandchild for thier final hurrah in life...Let alone the uncles and aunts, cousins etc...

but you are wrong in that they are universally reffered to as VAWA

Most all Mens groups do such as f.a.c.t. and others as they are extremely similar and enacted by the same Misandry driven womens groups read man.

I have never said this of anyone within the Apolyton community, but I will say that Blackice is nothing but a baldface liar trying to create hate against women

Lier your ignorance is truely bliss to you isn't it
Again it is a lie to say I promote hate against women I have done no such thing. I have made it clear many times what I am against and "women" it is not... Misandry it is and I bet you have no idea what that means? that is what I am against so take your lies heh well you know all to well I bet what to do with them heh. If you did know what it means you would be aginst it too if not for your sake but that of your children both male and female.

You on the other hand do lean towards hatered of men hummm I guess the question would be when you started hating males at what age does it apply?...

he has done nothing but print blatent lies.

Ahhh the uneducated speaks we must all listen heh. Lies when leading you down the garden path It is painfully obvious you know nothing of this subject at all. Your arguements are uninformed, your assumptions hilarious, your knowlegde lacking at best like hows is my typing and english so far You are but opinionated period=fool.You jumped on subjects and facts without so much as a quick Google search. You read only what you needed to continue you diluded diatribe. Bravo you again proved what I have said about you from the onset...

I know this is quite a flame, but almost everything that Blackice has posted has been proven to be false.

Only to a limited intellegence such as yours I think the educated in the know people see you for your worth...I know I do... False ayrian to I a bet

but it is unlikely that a federal senator would comment on a provincial bill.

Please do tell more we are all ears

Back to the issue here is but one tiny little link to some of the facts as they stand on sexual harrassment in the workplace. Now imagine this does get worse than this...

http://mensrights.bizhosting.com/

[Dis]

I would like to point out that men do win sexual harrassment against men cases in the U.S. They are weenies for admitting to it Just Kidding. If a guy is sexually harrassed he usually wins- assuming it is legit.

Now we move on to custody. Has it ever occurred to anyone that many men aren't capable of custody of children? I figure there is a reason they divorced in the first place. One of those reasons might because the guy is a jerk-off. Some guys just can't handle responsiblity.

I'm going to need more than meaningless statistics to believe good honest hard working men are being denied custody. I'm willing to believe that the low lifes that are denied custody are men who can't hold a job, alcoholics, abusers etc.

Like I said when the line is crossed I will speak up. I mentioned this in another thread. I won't put up with hate speech by women. If they start hate speech against men I will fight back.

[faded glory]

I completely agree with Blackice

Everybody is a victim. Blacks, Asians, Women, Gays, fat people......everybody is a ****in victim of some kind of oppression!


As for the article. I didnt read it. I just came in here to say somthing.

[Dis]

you can't forget the most recent victim

white men

I can't blame them really. They just wanted part of the fun. Kind of like when the russians started complaining after the Canadians complained about their silver medal. In fact it is exactly like that. There is no basis for their complaints, they just complain because everyone else is.

[blackice]

Dissident I will simply ignore what you typed it does not deserve response Maybe it does:

Rev. Martin Niemoller, commenting on events in Germany 1933-1939 said:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics, and
I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time, no one was left to
speak up." -- Rev. Dr. Martin Niemoeller, July 1,
1937; arrested by the Third Reich...

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_parl/session1/Committees/justice/J027.htm#P278_91700

Which is now law...

http://www.ontla.on.ca/Documents/StatusofLegOUT/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...

[faded glory]

Hey Dissident, who are you kidding. Alot of these Femminist whores would have us all Spayed if they had it there way!

[General Ludd]

Funny how Faded complains about everyone being victims, when he and blackice are playing the role in this thread.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Osweld
Funny how Faded complains about everyone being victims, when he and blackice are playing the role in this thread.

[General Ludd]

Re: I completely agree with Blackice

First you say:

Originally posted by faded glory
everybody is a ****in victim of some kind of oppression!

And then you take on the role of the "victim of oppresion" and say:

Alot of these Femminist whores would have us all Spayed if they had it there way!

[blackice]

when he and blackice are playing the role in this thread.

The role? meaning?

[faded glory]

Welcome to the Ignore list Osweld. Not like you ever contribute anything anyway

[faded glory]

Originally posted by blackice


The role? meaning?

Dont even bother Pete. Its like talking to a board.