The
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was signed
by President Bush in January without any public debate, but evidence
is now surfacing which Congress should have examined before the law
was passed. VAWA is a nearly-billion-dollar-a-year extension of one
of the major ways that Bill Clinton bought the support of the
radical feminists.
Why Republicans passed this bill is a mystery. It's unlikely that
the feminists who will spend all that money will ever vote
Republican.
Passage of VAWA was a major priority of the American Bar
Association (ABA) for whose members it is a cash cow. More than 300
courts have implemented specialized docket processes to address
VAWA-type cases, more than a million women have obtained protection
orders from the courts, and more than 660 new state laws pertaining
to domestic violence have been passed, all of which produce
profitable work for lawyers.
A recently issued ABA document called "Tool for Attorneys"
provides lawyers with a list of suggestive questions to encourage
their clients to make domestic-violence charges. Knowing that a
woman can get a restraining order against the father of her children
in an ex parte proceeding without any evidence, and that she will
never be punished for lying, domestic-violence accusations have
become a major tactic for securing sole child custody.
Voluminous documentation to dispel the feminist myths that
created and have perpetuated VAWA are spelled out in seven reports
just issued by an organization called RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in
Domestic Abuse Reporting), and in an 80-page report called "Family
Violence in America" published by the American Coalition for Fathers
& Children.
For example, it is a shocker to discover that acts don't have to
be violent to be punished under the definition of domestic violence.
Name-calling, put-downs, shouting, negative looks or gestures,
ignoring opinions, or constant criticizing can all be legally
labeled domestic violence.
The ABA report states flatly: "Domestic violence does not
necessarily involve physical violence." The feminists' mantra is,
"You don't have to be beaten to be abused."
VAWA advocates assert that domestic violence is a crime, yet
family courts often adjudicate domestic violence as a civil (not a
criminal) matter. This enables courts to deny the accused all Bill
of Rights and due process protections which are granted to the most
heinous of criminals.
Specifically, the accused is not innocent until proven guilty but
is presumed guilty, and he doesn't have to be convicted "beyond a
reasonable doubt." Due process rights, such as trial by jury and the
right of free counsel to poor defendants, are regularly denied, and
false accusations are not covered by perjury law. VAWA provides
funding for legal representation for accusers but not for
defendants.
Those who are concerned about judicial activism, i.e.,
judges legislating from the bench, could observe judges doing this
every day in domestic violence cases. Every time a judge issues a
restraining order, the judge creates new crimes for which an
individual can be arrested and jailed without trial for doing what
no statute prohibits and what anyone else may lawfully do.
This criminalizing of ordinary private behavior and incarceration
without due process follows classic police-state practices. Evidence
is irrelevant, hearsay is admissible, defendants have no right to
confront their accusers, and forced confessions are a common
feature.
Some of these injustices result from overzealous law enforcement
officials (sometimes running for office), and some from timid judges
who grant restraining orders and deny due process to defendants for
fear of being blamed for subsequent violence. Most of this, however,
is the result of feminist activism and the taxpayers' money given
them by Congress.
The ease and the speed with which women can get restraining
orders without fear of punishment for lying indicates that the
dynamic driving domestic-violence accusations is child custody
rather than violence. Restraining orders don't prevent violence, but
they do have the immediate effect of separating fathers from their
children and imprisoning fathers for acts that are perfectly legal
if done by anyone else (such as attending a public event at which
his child is performing).
The restraining order issued against TV talk show host David
Letterman, allegedly to protect a woman who claimed he was harassing
her through his TV broadcasts, is a good example of how easy it is
to get a court order based on false allegations. Another ridiculous
restraining order was issued against celebutante Paris Hilton to
protect a man she had badmouthed.
VAWA money is used by anti-male feminists to train judges,
prosecutors and the police in the feminist myths that domestic
violence is a contagious epidemic, and that men are naturally
batterers and women are naturally victims. The feminists lobby state
legislators to pass must-arrest and must-prosecute laws even when
the police don't observe any crime and can't produce a witness to
testify about an alleged crime.
Assault and battery are crimes in every state and should be
prosecuted. But persons so accused should be entitled to their
constitutional rights. After all, is this America?