Month: December 2022

Istanbul Convention, Gender, and State Silence

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 30, 2022

Istanbul Convention, Gender, and State Silence

David Walsh

December 30, 2022

The Istanbul Convention is back in the news. On Wednesday, the Swiss government rejected the idea of introducing a third-gender or no-gender option for official records (1). The promotion of gender ideology is a key element of the hotly debated Istanbul Convention.

Due to the refusal of six states to ratify the IC, the EU Commission is preparing to adopt a Directive which would be legally binding on member states. It has drafted a document which is now in the process of being considered by the Parliament, after which it will be put before the EU Council for final implementation (2).

This will bring to a head once again the sovereignty issue: Whether national law or EU law takes precedence when there is a conflict.

It unexpectedly brings together two issues important to the EU: Hate speech laws (3) and gender ideology, which Bulgaria identified as an element of the Convention.

It is likely that the Directive will require citizens who criticise gender ideology to be charged under hate speech laws.

In Bulgaria, the Constitutional Court declared the Convention incompatible with the Fundamental Law due to its understanding of gender as a fluid construct, dependent on subjective feelings (4).

And all of this is proceeding with almost no discussion. Indeed, the citizens of most member states are entirely unaware that this is happening behind their backs, so little of these deliberations is making it into the media. Normally the EU Parliament gets little attention in national media, but in recent weeks, a corruption scandal has engulfed the Parliament and a vice-president is now in jail together with several associates, a scandal at the worst possible moment (5).

There are momentous issues at stake as the Bulgarian Constitutional Court determined; the focus on gender ideology has infuriated EU officials and brought accusations of disinformation (6).

Not all EU countries have provided for gender self-identification; in some places such as Ireland, it was imported by stealth and the pitfalls of this legislation are now becoming clearer as is the introduction of gender ideology in primary schools.

And so the Commission continues on the well-established path of keeping citizens in the dark, a pattern of behaviour well known as the “democratic deficit.”

When the Istanbul Convention was first introduced for individual states to ratify, a cloak of secrecy surrounded it.

In neither Ireland or England, was it put before citizens (6); no experts teased out its implications, no legal minds were asked to predict its consequences into the future or whether its provisions would be for good or ill. Consequently very few people are aware of its ramifications.

It all smacks of an attitude towards the public of “we know what is good for you.” And that attitude continues today.

References

(1) Switzerland rejects idea of a third-gender option in official records.https://www.euronews.com/2022/12/21/switzerland-rejects-idea-of-a-third-gender-option-in-official-records

(2) Draft Report EU Parliament Oct 26 2022: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CJ01-PR-737351_EN.pdf

(3) https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2068 which was released in Nov 2020, describes how “hate speech” will be added to the list of “EU crimes”: the Commission will present an initiative in 2021 to extend the list of ‘EU crimes’ to include hate crime and hate speech, including when targeted at LGBTIQ people.”

(4) https://www.novinite.com/articles/191318/The+Constitutional+Court+Decided%3A+The+Istanbul+Convention+is+Against+the+Bulgarian+Constitution

(5) https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/qatargate-curtain-rises-on-act-one-of-what-could-be-worst-scandal-the-eu-has-ever-known-42227410.html

(6) Draft Report EU Parliament Oct 26, 2022: Par 11 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CJ01-PR-737351_EN.pdf

(7) https://theconversation.com/what-the-uk-ratifying-the-istanbul-convention-on-gendered-violence-means-for-women-and-girls-193166 Oct 26, 2022

Why Are Young Women Becoming More Violent?

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 28, 2022

Why Are Young Women Becoming More Violent?

SAVE

December 28, 2022

These three stories about domestic assaults appeared in a single day on December 27, 2022:

Criminologists have known for more than 30 years that young women are rapidly becoming more violent. To illustrate the phenomenon, here’s a story from 2006, at which point the trend was already more than a decade old:

Are US Girls Becoming More Violent?

July 2006

Adolescent U.S. girls are being arrested in record numbers. … [N]ational arrest statistics for simple and aggravated assaults by girls have been on the rise for more than a decade. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports note the female percentage of total juvenile assault arrests jumped from 21 percent to 32 percent between 1990 and 2003. And the U.S. female juvenile assault rate rose from about 200 for every 100,000 girls to 750 between 1980 and 2003.

Some analysts trace the surge in the number of girls arrested to increased pressures—from the breakdowns of family, church, community, and school—that have increased their propensity for violence. Other analysts reason that girls are more likely to act out or lash out due to changing gender-role expectations: Greater female freedom and assertiveness have masculinized female behavior and are expressed in an imitation of male machismo competitiveness. And violence by girls is also pervasive in much of today’s entertainment. (Even in a recent Harry Potter movie, a girl character—Hermione Granger—hits a boy, only to say afterwards: “Boy, that felt good.”)

The trend is all the more remarkable because, until 2020, the crime rate for every other demographic group had been declining for more than 20 years. Young women were the only demographic group that showed an increase in violent crime. Here’s a story from early 2020:

Female fugitives: Why is ‘pink-collar crime’ on the rise?

The Guardian, Jan 6, 2020

Men commit more crimes than women do. A lot more. This holds true over time and across cultures. In America, the incarceration capital of the world (more than 2 million detainees), males comprise 93% of the prison population. Men also account for 73% of all arrests and 80% of those charged with violent crimes. This disparity between the sexes is particularly stark when it comes to murder: 90% of the time, the ones who do the killing are men.

All these numbers add up to what criminologists call the “gender gap”. But read enough academic journals and government crime reports, and some curious facts emerge: while crime rates in the western world have steadily declined over the past three decades, the number of young women being convicted for violent crimes in some western countries has increased significantly; law enforcement records indicate the opposite is true for their male counterparts. In other words, the gender gap is closing.

In some UK cities, the number of female arrests increased by 50% from 2015 to 2016. That’s more than a blip. A 2017 report by the Institute For Criminal Policy Research at Birkbeck, University of London came up with this sobering data point: the global female prison population has surged by more than half since the turn of the century, while the male prison population increased by just a fifth over that same period. Women and girls may account for only 7% of all incarcerated people today, but their numbers are now growing at a much faster rate than at any time in recorded history.

Going Easy on Female Offenders

Criminologists advance several different theories for the increase in violent crime by young females, including the substantial disparity in criminal justice outcomes for women compared to men. Young female perpetrators understand they are much less likely to be prosecuted than similarly-situated male offenders. And, even if prosecuted, are likely to receive substantially lower sentences than similarly-situated male offenders. In other words, young women are becoming more violent, at least in part, because they believe they can get away with it.

Numerous studies confirm this sex bias. Here’s a small sample of these studies:

Sonja B. Starr, Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases, U. of Mich. Law School, Law and Econ. Res. Paper Ser., Paper No. 12-018 (Aug. 2012). After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history and other variables, “men receive 63 percent longer sentences on average than women” and “women are . . . twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.”
Byungbae Kim, Xia Wang and Hyunjung Cheon, Examining the Impact of Ecological Contexts on Gender Disparity in Federal Sentencing, 36 Justice Qtrly 466 (2018).
Emma E. Fridel, Leniency for Lethal Ladies: Using the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model to Examine Gender-Based Sentencing Disparities, 23 Homicide Stud. 319 (2019). “Women were less likely to receive the harshest possible punishment, regardless of their partner’s gender. These findings provide support for the female leniency effect, suggesting that gender bias continues to influence sentencing decisions for homicide.”
Henry J. Muller, Sarah L. Desmarais and John M. Hamel, Do Judicial Responses to Restraining Order Requests Discriminate Against Male Victims of Domestic Violence? 24 J. Fam. Viol. 625 (2009). Study of domestic violence restraining orders found that “judges were almost 13 times more likely to grant a TRO requested by a female plaintiff against her male intimate partner, than a TRO requested by a male plaintiff against his female partner.”.
Chris Johnson, Nebraska Must Address Gender Bias. (December 14, 2016). “According to the largest-ever review of domestic violence research, women and men abuse their partners at comparable rates. The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project found 28.3 percent of women perpetrated domestic violence compared with 21.6 percent of men.”

Sex bias in the criminal system arises from the actions of police officers, prosecutors, and judges, and well as from the misconceptions of lawmakers and the public at large. It’s time to stop these egregious violations of the Equal Protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Campus Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Investigations Legal Press Release Sexual Harassment Title IX

Mass Opposition to Students’ Access to Freedom and Educational Rights (SAFER) Act

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 20, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Mass Opposition to Students’ Access to Freedom and Educational Rights (SAFER) Act

WASHINGTON / December 20, 2022 – The Students’ Access to Freedom and Educational Rights (SAFER) Act, recently introduced in the Senate (S. 5158) and House of Representatives (H.R. 9387), has ignited a wave of opposition.

The SAFER bill would dramatically broaden the meaning of “sexual harassment” to include virtually all conduct that is viewed as “unwelcome.” The bill would expand the definition of “sex,” thereby allowing for the participation of biological males in women’s sporting events. The Act would also remove key due process protections for the accused, such as the right to an impartial investigation, thereby undermining the presumption of innocence (1).

A SAVE public opinion survey, conducted in June by YouGov, revealed the following (2):

57% of Americans oppose revamping the Supreme Court’s definition of “sexual harassment.”
63% of Americans oppose changing the definition of “sex” to include “gender identity.”
71% of Americans oppose transgender participation in women’s sports.
87% of Americans want to retain the presumption of innocence in college disciplinary proceedings.

Accordingly, two statements were issued by groups during the past week that expressed strong opposition to the SAFER Act:

One Call to Action highlighted the fact that in recent months, two federal courts have issued decisions that nixed expanded definitions of “sex.” (3)
The Heritage Foundation charged, “There is no scientific or legal basis that supports changing ‘sex’ to ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ in Title IX. Such a change threatens everyone’s freedoms, removes important due process protections for students in higher education, and puts girls and women in danger of physical harm.” (4)

In addition, an editorial revealed that 83% of college students currently report self-censoring their speech to avoid criticism. By expanding the definition of sexual harassment, the SAFER bill would dramatically worsen campus restrictions on free speech (5).

Co-sponsors of the SAFER Act are urged to withdraw their support for the SAFER Act bill and reaffirm their oath of office to “uphold and defend” the U.S. Constitution, including the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Links:

Campus Due Process False Allegations Investigations Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Trauma Informed

Rigged: SAFER Act Bears Eerie Resemblance to Soviet-Era Legal System

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 15, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Rigged: SAFER Act Bears Eerie Resemblance to Soviet-Era Legal System

WASHINGTON / December 15, 2022 — The Students’ Access to Freedom and Educational Rights (SAFER) Act (1) was recently introduced in the Senate (S. 5158) and House of Representatives (H.R. 9387). The bill proposes to make numerous changes to campus Title IX adjudication procedures that would tilt the process in favor of the complainant. The changes are reminiscent of practices often seen in the former Soviet Union.

In the Soviet Union, Lavrentiy Beria, head of Stalin’s secret police, often boasted, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” Similarly, the SAFER Act would provide complainants a broad array of supports and protections, leaving accused persons to their own devices. (Section 205)

In the Soviet Union, “all aspects of the Soviet legal system were effectively subordinate to the leadership of the Soviet Communist Party,” according to University of Illinois law professor Peter Maggs (2). On college campuses, ideologically committed Title IX coordinators wield enormous control over the processing of complaints. Under SAFER, their power would further expand to have a say over “teaching practices, textbooks, and curricula.” (Section 206)

In the Soviet Union, false allegations were rampant. Similarly, 40-50% of sexual assault allegations on American college campuses are known to be unfounded (3). Ironically, the SAFER Act would discourage a school from disciplining a person who makes a false allegation. (Section 205)

In the Soviet Union, investigators would slant their methods in order to reach a predetermined conclusion of guilt. Under the SAFER Act, campus investigators would be mandated to use “trauma-informed interview techniques” — methods that would further tilt what already is a biased Title IX process (4). (Section 205)

In the Soviet Union, “there was severe pressure from the party hierarchy to secure a 100 percent conviction rate, with the result that thereafter there were almost no acquittals.” (2) In the United States, Oberlin College once boasted it had a 100% conviction rate for Title IX cases (5).

As if to underscore the irrelevance of the SAFER bill, in three separate decisions this past week, federal judges issued rulings that illustrate the due process deficiencies of campus “kangaroo courts:”

The First Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court decision, and ruled against Stonehill College of Massachusetts for its deeply flawed adjudication methods (6).
Judge Reed O’Connor issued a ruling against Texas Christian University, finding that TCU had instructed that exculpatory evidence for the man was “not to [be] consider[ed],” “discussed or referenced” by the Title IX panel (7).
The District Court of Western Wisconsin ruled against the University of Wisconsin-Madison for various procedural errors against a male student that constituted sex discrimination (8).

SAVE urges lawmakers to oppose the SAFER Act.

Links:

Domestic Violence

Not only Women, But Also Men Can Become Victims of Violence (Lithuanian)

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 13, 2022

Smurto aukomis tampa ne tik moterys, bet ir vyrai

Stengiamasi žaisti „į vienus vartus“

B.van der Weg-Bražiūnienė atkreipė dėmesį ir į tai, kad visą praėjusią savaitę daugelyje pasaulio šalių, bet tik ne Lietuvoje, vyko Tarptautinei vyrų dienai (pažymima lapkričio 19 d.) skirti renginiai.

„Toks dėmesys – ne atsitiktinis, o tampriai susijęs su stebimu vyrų demonizavimu ir jų teisių menkinimu. Todėl daugybė organizacijų iš viso pasaulio kvietė į 3-ąjį iš eilės Globalinį stebėjimą – savaitę trunkančią Tarptautinės vyrų dienos šventę. Ypatingai šiais metais stengtasi akcentuoti smurto prieš vyrus šeimose problematiką“, – pasakojo visuomenininkė.

Pasak jos, situaciją dar labiau blogina tai, kad problemą stengiamasi ignoruoti.

„Jungtinių Tautų socialinių, humanitarinių ir kultūrinių klausimų komitetas svarsto dokumentą „Smurtas prieš moteris ir merginas, jo priežastys ir pasekmės“. Deja, A/77/136 ataskaita yra tokia ydinga, kad Tarptautinis prievartos ir smurto artimoje aplinkoje aljansas (Domestic Abuse and Violence International Alliance, sutr.DAVIA) , kuris šiuo metu apjungia 68 organizacijas iš 28 pasaulio šalių, ragina komitetą atšaukti tolesnį svarstymą. Priešingu atveju kyla pavojus, kad bus diskredituojamos teisėtos pastangos spręsti klimato kaitos, COVID ir realias smurto šeimoje problemas. DAVIA atlikta JT dokumento analizė atskleidė tokius jo trūkumus: 1. Mokslinio patikimumo stoka dėl netinkamo ir netikslaus pagrindinių teiginių šaltinio; 2. Teiginys, kad „Tyrimai parodė, jog per klimatines katastrofas moterys miršta 14 kartų dažniau negu vyrai yra nepatikimas, neįtikėtinas ir nepriklausomų apžvalgininkų apibūdintas kaip „zombių statistika“; 3. Klaidingai tvirtinama, kad COVID „neproporcingai“ paveikia moteris ir mergaites; policijos pranešimai, nusikalstamumo statistika ir kolegų peržiūrimi tyrimai rodo, kad pandemijos metu smurtas šeimoje nepadidėjo; 4. Mirtingumo, susijusio su badu, tyrimų neįtraukimas. Orveliška manipuliacija, padedanti eliminuoti nuolat pasikartojantį didesnį vyrų mirtingumą stichinių nelaimių atvejais; 5. Nesugebėjimas pripažinti fakto, kad moterys taip pat dažnai smurtauja šeimoje; 6. Vyrų-smurto aukų nuasmeninimas yra taktika, seniai asocijuojama su totalitariniais režimais. Trumpiau tariant, minėtas JT dokumentas, DAVIA nuomone, yra ideologijos triumfas prieš mokslą“, – niūrią realybę įvardino B.van der Weg-Bražiūnienė.

Ji patikslino, kad DAVIA siekė pabrėžti didžiulį, dabar JT komiteto svarstomų pasiūlymų šališkumą, o aljanso parengta ataskaita yra laisvai prieinama internete.

„Reaguodamos į tai tarptautinės organizacijos visame pasaulyje penktadienį, lapkričio 18 d., minėjo Tarptautinę kovos su smurtu prieš vyrus dieną. Tą pačią dieną Tarptautinis prievartos ir smurto artimoje aplinkoje aljansas surengė tarptautinę spaudos konferenciją, kurioje pasisakė DAVIA prezidentas Edward E. Bartlett, knygų apie moterų smurtą prieš vyrus autorė Ann Silvers, su Tėvų atstūmimo problema dirbanti Jan James, Stambulo konvencijos kritikas, politikos studijų profesorius Stephenas Baskerville, Indijos vyrų forumo atstovas Anirban Sinha ir kiti.

Lietuvoje irgi liūdna

Ne vienerius metus su tėvų atstūmimo problematika dirbanti ir aktyviai įvairių organizacijų veikloje dalyvaujanti B.van der Weg-Bražiūnienė įvertino ir Lietuvos situaciją.

„Tyrimai rodo, kad būtent lyčių stereotipai ir nuostatos, kokiais asmenybės bruožais turi pasižymėti viena ar kita lytis, gali lemti tai, jog Lietuvoje vyrų savižudybių yra net keturis kartus daugiau, nei moterų. Dar 2006 m. Rita Žukauskienė savo knygoje „Kriminalinio elgesio psichologija“ rašė: „smurtauti ir būti auka gali ir vyras, ir moteris. Intymių partnerių smurtas yra gana plačiai paplitęs Šiaurės Amerikos visuomenėje. Daugelis pagalbos tarnybų intervencinių programų orientuotos reaguoti į smurtą, kurį patiria moterys iš savo sutuoktinių arba partnerių, ir dažniausiai smurtas tarp partnerių sutuoktinių suprantamas kaip vyro smurtas, o ne priešingai. Vis dėlto kai kurių autorių tyrimai, atlikti daugiausia JAV, rodo, kad moterys taip pat taiko smurtą prieš savo vyrus, o kai kurie autoriai pažymi, jog moterys labiau nei vyrai linkę smurtauti prieš savo intymų partnerį“, – čia prieš tai minėtos knygos ištrauką pacitavo visuomenininkė.

Pasak jos, tokias prielaidas patvirtino ir vėlesniais metais atliktos analizės.

Daugiau negu 343 mokslinių tyrimų, atliktų 40 šalių smurto artimoje aplinkoje tema, kompiliacija patvirtina, jog: „moterys yra fiziškai agresyvios, kaip ir vyrai (ar daugiau) santykiuose su savo sutuoktiniais ar priešingos lyties partneriais“ (šaltinis: Martin Fiebert „Nuorodos, nagrinėjančios moterų išpuolius prieš savo sutuoktinius ar vyrus“, 2014 m.). Nepaisant to, feministinės organizacijos nesiremia mokslinių tyrimų išvadomis, bet naudoja pranešimų apie smurtą policijai suvestines. Kaip žinia, vyrai dėl patirto šeimoje smurto skundžiasi dažniausiai tik tada, kai jis tampa fiziškai pavojingas, ką patvirtinta ir 2020 Lietuvoje atliktas tyrimas (https://www.specializuotospagalboscentras.lt/tyrimai/), – toliau situaciją vertino visuomenininkė. Dar tebėra gajus berniukų auklėjimas principu, jog vyrams nedera reikšti savo jausmų ar laikyti savęs aukomis. Persmelkiantys įsitikinimai ar stereotipai apie tai, kad vyrai yra smurtautojai, o moterys – aukos, tvyro kaip slogus smogas mūsų visuomenėje. Dėl to vyrai nedrįsta skųstis, neieško pagalbos, ką, deja, ne kiekvienas psichologiškai atlaiko. Prievarta prieš vyrus dažnai traktuojama kaip ne tokia rimta arba iš vis nereikšminga.

Vyrai, kaip žinia, dažnai smurtą patiria skyrybų metu, kai, siekiant didesnės dalies užgyvento turto ar išimtinai vaikų globos, jie yra nepagrįstai apkaltinami smurtu. Kol vyksta tyrimas, vyrai negali pareiti į savo nuosavus namus, matytis su vaikais. Praktika rodo, kad dažnai tokių atveju metu vaikai yra nuteikinėjami prieš tėčius, todėl galime kalbėti ir apie psichologinį smurtą prieš vaiką. Vėliau tas, dažniausiai, išsivysto į tėvų atstūmimą. Aišku, moterys taip pat susiduria su tėvų atstūmimu, bet vyrai dėl to nukenčia 4-6 kartus dažniau.

Be to, kaltinimams smurtu nepasitvirtinus, dažniausiai melagingai apkaltinusieji lieka nenubausti. Įdomu, ar statistikoje išlieka nepasitvirtinę pranešimai apie „patirtą“ smurtą. Ar kas susimąstė, kokį psichologines pasekmes patiria nekaltai apkaltintas žmogus?

Pasak B.van der Weg-Bražiūnienės, reikia suprasti, kad smurtas neturi lyties, todėl atpildo privalo susilaukti visi smurtautojai.

Bills Campus Department of Education Discrimination Domestic Violence False Allegations Free Speech Sexual Harassment Title IX

SAFER Act Seeks Sweeping Changes to Redefine ‘Sex’ and ‘Sexual Harassment’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 12, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAFER Act Seeks to Make Sweeping Changes to Redefine ‘Sex’ and ‘Sexual Harassment’

WASHINGTON / December 12, 2022 – Lawmakers recently introduced the Students’ Access to Freedom and Educational Rights (SAFER) Act in both the Senate and House (1). The bill proposes to codify sweeping changes to the definitions of “sex” and “sexual harassment.”

Definition of Sex

The existing Title IX law, enacted in 1972, was designed to eliminate discrimination based on a student’s “sex.” But the SAFER bill seeks to expand this fundamental term to include sex stereotypes, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Gender identity is defined as “a person’s internal sense of gender, which could be female, male, or another gender.” (Section 101)

To date, two circuit courts have ruled against changing the Title IX definition of sex:

On July 15, 2022 a Tennessee District Court issued a Preliminary Injunction overturning the Department of Education’s Interpretation of Title IX to include “discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” (2)
In a November 11, 2022 decision, a Texas District Court ruled in Neese v. Becerra that Title IX does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. (3)

Over 200 organizations have gone on record in opposition (4) to proposed changes to Title IX that would expand the definition of “sex,” which would impose devastating consequences on women’s sports (5), promote life-altering sex changes on underage children (6), and have long-term effects on parental rights (7).

Definition of Sexual Harassment

In Davis v. Monroe, the U.S. Supreme Court defined sexual harassment as harassment that is ‘‘so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.’’ (8)

But the SAFER bill proposes a broader definition of sexual harassment that would encompass virtually all sex-related conduct that is perceived as “unwelcome:”

“any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, regardless of whether it is direct or indirect, or verbal or nonverbal (including conduct that is undertaken in whole or in part, through the use of electronic messaging services, commercial mobile services, electronic communications, or other technology), that unreasonably alters an individual’s terms, benefits, or privileges of an education program or activity, including by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment.” (Section 203(i))

Such changes would exact harmful consequences on free speech (9) and open the door for a wave of false allegations of sexual misconduct and domestic violence (10). A former Washington State prosecutor explains the false allegations problem this way (11):

“The Department of Education has put immense pressure on higher education institutions to handle cases to their liking….As a result of this unfair treatment, innocent accused students, staff, and faculty find themselves expelled, fired or facing criminal charges.”

In Orwellian fashion, the bill sponsors make the remarkable claim that the SAFER Act will protect “all” students from discrimination (12).

SAVE urges lawmakers to strongly oppose the SAFER Act.

Links:

Domestic Violence Due Process False Allegations Law & Justice Legal

Families in Bermuda Are Being Harmed by the UN’s Domestic Violence Policies

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 6, 2022

Families in Bermuda Are Being Harmed by the UN’s Domestic Violence Policies

Edward M. Tavares

Co-founder, ChildWatch Bermuda

Bermuda is part of United Kingdom’s commonwealth as an overseas dependent territory. We are sharing our concerns about the status of shared parenting and domestic violence policies.

Shared Parenting

According to Bermuda’s last statistical family type release in May 31, 2006, 85% of custody of children post-divorce and separation was held by women. How can 85% of fathers be relegated to visitor status by the courts because their marriage failed? Most studies show these divorce decisions are made unilaterally by women.

Continuous violation exists with respect to the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which states in Article 9:

Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, and that
Such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately, and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.
Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.

However, fathers have been relegated to visitor status for decades in regard to custody of their children after divorce or separation by the courts, most times without any investigations or due process. This can cause violations of the European Human Rights, Article 8 of the Convention– Right to respect for private and family life:

“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”

One father went to court for 28 years trying to obtain custody and to defend his parental rights. Meanwhile, he lost his house, bank accounts, etc., while having to obtain 14 lawyers and achieving little remedy in the court. This abuse of the law constitutes as legal administrative abuse and coercive control, requiring that the father must conform and comply with their demands.

The biases of the Courts and family Counsellors, Department of Child and Family Services, apparently see only mothers as viable caregivers. These injustices are usually compounded by many local organizations with the power of the Bermuda Police Services, while threatening and harassing letters are sent out without any investigations to many fathers to order them to conform to the demands which often are contrary to Court orders in place. We believe that these letters are just to gain higher status and finances, within society, and garner sympathy from politicians/legislators.

Prior to 2002 we had six men paying support for a child that was not theirs. We at ChildWatch advocated for legal changes as unwed fathers were not able to take proceedings against mothers, nor were allowed DNA testing for paternity fraud, according to “The Affiliation Act, 1976.” One father found out that he wasn’t the father 17 years later, and a few others learned the truth 14 years later.

In 2006, one accused father was denied DNA testing even after it was implemented into law in 2002. The Judge refused DNA testing on the false claim of the mother that he was the father. After three years having gone to prison as ordered by the court, we lobbied to have him tested. Eventually this father was granted permission, and the results revealed that he was not the biological father. This ruined his life, having lost his job, and was considered unemployable, and unacceptable to society.

Many fathers suffer from not only losing their children, but also losing their homes and finances in the struggle for their children’s benefit. Following a divorce, a parent may engage in behaviors that serve to alienate the child from the other parent. In an attempt to cover up the alienating behavior, the alienating parent may then falsely accuse the target parent of child abuse.

Bermuda’s prison inmates come largely from fatherless homes. Poor education attainment, and dropping out, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, alcohol, behavioral problems, gang culture, and deaths by murder are more customary to male victims who come mostly from fatherless homes.

Policies of the United Nations

The World Health Organization reports that men are far more likely to die of violence-related causes than women, for the following age groups (death rates 100,00 population):

• 5-14 years: Male: 1.7; Female: 1.0

• 15-24 years: Male: 57.7; Female: 8.1

• 25-34 years: Male: 92.3; Female: 10.3

• 35-54 years: Male: 70.6; Female: 6.5

• 55-74 years: Male: 29.5; Female: 3.3

Overall, the WHO reveals that men are eight times more likely than women to die of violence-related causes.

The UN report, “A Gendered Analysis of Violent Deaths”, similarly concluded, “Globally, men and boys accounted for 84 per cent of the people who died violently in 2010–15.” Clearly, violence against men represents a greater problem than violence against women.

Regarding domestic violence, a compilation of 343 scholarly investigations concluded that “women are as physically aggressive as men (or more) in their relationships with their spouses or opposite-sex partners.” These studies were conducted on a broad range of racial, ethnic, and socio-economic groups in 40 different countries.

ChildWatch Bermuda has great concerns regarding the UN Women’s position paper to “Eliminate Domestic Violence Against Women and Girls.” Our concern is that there is no mention of the “Elimination of Domestic Violence Against Men and Boys” included. Studies show that men suffer equally as women from domestic violence.

An analysis of Resolution A/77/302: Intensification of Efforts to Eliminate All Forms of Violence Against Women and Girls by the Domestic Abuse and Violence International Alliance on October 17, 2022 reveals substantial bias against male victims.

Domestic Violence During the COVID Pandemic

On March 23, 2020 the U.S.-based National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence issued an alert with this startling claim: “Survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault are facing extreme danger and risk.” Likewise, UN Women declared a “shadow pandemic of violence against women and girls” which would result from lockdowns across the world.

These alerts did not provide any evidence to support their claims. Subsequently, a wave of media accounts predicted an imminent “spike” and “spurt” of abuse, often featuring heart-rending — but unsubstantiated — anecdotes.

But the predicted catastrophe never happened. Numerous independent analyses of hotline calls, police calls for service, and crime statistics, both in the United States and abroad, concluded that overall, there was no increase in domestic violence or sexual assault, and some locales saw a decrease.

The U.S. National Domestic Violence Hotline reports on the number of answered calls, chats, and texts received each year since 1996. The graph from the most recent report reveals the number of answered inquiries in 2020 was 363,000, which is the same number as in 2018. Clearly, there was no “spike” or “surge” in the number of abuse calls during the COVID pandemic.

Imposed Separation Communication breakdowns are inherent in human relationships. In years past, police officers encouraged the parties to temporarily separate and make amends. But now, any marital tiff can be considered to be domestic “abuse.” Today, we have instituted mandatory-arrest laws, even when short-term separation and counseling for the parties would be the more appropriate measure.

Conclusion

These are just a few examples of the many injustices seen in Bermuda. We would like to thank you for taking the time to review and consider our concerns. Hopefully, we can reach a viable solution against domestic abuse for men and women, including boys and girls.

In addition, I will be happy to set up a telephone call to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your attention to this matter of importance.