SPECIAL REPORT - Fifty Domestic Violence Myths
RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting)
June 23, 2009
White House appoints domestic violence adviser
Associated Press Archive
June 26, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
A longtime advocate for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault was named to a new post Friday as a White House adviser on violence against women.
In announcing the appointment of Lynn Rosenthal, Vice President Joe Biden said that creating the job allows the White House to revive a focus on domestic violence issues -- which Biden said were not at the forefront during the Bush administration.
"What I'm about to say is not a knock or a criticism on the last administration or anybody else," Biden said, but "one of the sins of omission is this has not been a front and center issue for the last eight years on the national agenda. It used to be."
The White House said Rosenthal will advise President Barack Obama and Biden on domestic violence and sexual assault issues, push for new initiatives of combating violence and work with government agencies on related issues.
A former director of a women's shelter, Rosenthal was executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence from 2000 to 2006. And she worked as director of the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Biden said domestic violence was a priority when the Violence Against Women Act was passed in 1994, allowing for increased funding for women's shelters and law-enforcement training. Biden crafted the law during his time on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Then-President George W. Bush signed an extension of the Violence Against Women Act in 2006. The extension included new provisions on health care, early intervention and outreach to American Indian women.
Biden said Rosenthal will be coordinating with several agencies, including Justice, State, and Health and Health and Human Services.
"I think the first thing we got to do is just put this back in play, just get it up on the agenda. Get every secretary in the Cabinet thinking about it," Biden said to a room full of advocates against domestic violence.
Each year, women experience about 4.8 million physical assaults and rapes associated with their intimate partners, according to a National Violence Against Women Survey published in 2000. The survey said men are the victims of about 2.9 million intimate partner-related physical assaults.
NOW president Kim Gandy, who took part in a panel discussion about domestic violence after Biden spoke, said, "It's extremely important to have advocacy at the highest level of government for both prevention and services related to the extraordinary epidemic."
Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing
"The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009"
Brian Walsh - Senior Legal Research Fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Government Press Releases (USA)
Judicial Studies
June 26, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
My name is Brian Walsh, and I am Senior Legal Research Fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. The views I express in this testimony are my own and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation.
Thank you Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions, and Members of the Committee for inviting me here today to address the principles and provisions of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (S. 909; HCPA). Criminal justice reform is a central focus of my research and reform work at the Heritage Foundation. Over the past three years, I have worked with hundreds of individuals and scores of organizations across the political spectrum to build consensus for principled, non-partisan criminal justice reform. My colleagues, allies, and I have gathered substantial evidence that the criminal justice system is in great need of principled reform, particularly at the federal level, and that this reform should not be driven by partisan politics.
Unfortunately, HCPA fails to measure up to this standard and would substantially undermine constitutional federalism and the high regard in which the American public should hold federal criminal law. There are three main problems with the HCPA.
1. The Act's new 'hate crimes' offenses are far broader and more amorphous than any properly defined criminal offense should be, and they thus invite prosecutorial abuse, politically motivated prosecutions, and related injustices.
2. The Act's 'hate crimes' offenses violate constitutional federalism by asserting federal law-enforcement power to police truly local conduct over which the Constitution has reserved sole authority to the 50 states.
3. The Act's 'hate crimes' offenses would be superfluous and likely to be counterproductive, for nearly all states have tough hate crimes laws and the violent conduct underlying the Act's hate crimes offenses has always been criminalized in all 50 states.
For these reasons, Congress should be exceedingly wary of the unnecessary, dangerously broad, and unconstitutional hate crimes offenses in the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Foundational Principles of Criminal Law
As Harvard law professor Herbert Wechsler observed half a century ago, criminal punishment is the greatest power that government routinely uses against its own citizens. Criminal justice thus is far too important to allow it to fall subject to partisan political interests. Rather, it should be governed and, whenever necessary, reformed according to several sound principles that are widely acknowledged and understood by the American people. Such principles include the following:
1. Because criminal punishment represents government's greatest application of power against its own citizens and is therefore especially susceptible to misuse and abuse, its scope and application should be carefully circumscribed.
2. Regardless of how displeased or angry some (or even a majority of) Americans might be about certain wrongful conduct, every criminal offense and every authorization of criminal enforcement power should be restricted by the text and plain meaning of the Constitution as well as our long-established criminal-law precedents.
3. Legislators and government officials must endeavor to ensure that the criminal law is worthy of the highest respect and avoid enacting laws and bringing cases that will undermine that respect.
4. One of the criminal law's fundamental qualities for engendering the respect of the people it governs is fairness; an unfair criminal law, including one that is tailored to favor one set or group of Americans over another, is all but certain to do substantial damage to Americans? respect for criminal law.
Despite Americans' almost universal assent to the principles above and others like them, criminal justice policy has become increasingly politicized over the past few decades, including in Congress. This has been caused by at least three major factors. First, the American people's strongly negative reaction to the increase in crime in the 1960s and 1970s made it politically popular to be "tough on crime," with harsher criminal offenses and greater punishment indicating an elected official's bona fides. On average, candidates for election and reelection who are ?tough on crime? can be expected to fare better at the polls than those candidates who are (or who are perceived to be) "soft on crime."
Second, efforts to combat this trend were in the past bogged down in constituent and interest-group politics, with those engaged in criminal-justice reform advocating for offenders who have committed certain categories of crime rather than for even-handed, across-the-board reforms that benefit all Americans. Some reform advocates and their constituents purposefully and consciously allied themselves with political parties.
Third, influential state and local law enforcement officials have increasingly turned to Washington to provide federal funding for local law enforcement operations. This hunt for federal funding skews the priorities of all state and local law enforcement officials and generally results in their placing undue emphasis on those issues and problems that receive national attention, rather than those issues and problems that pose the greatest risks and problems to local communities.
Today, a large coalition is working to reverse this politicization of criminal justice policy. My criminal-justice reform allies and I have found among members of both major political parties at the federal, state, and local levels a growing recognition of the need for reform that is both principled and non-partisan. Before the November election, for example, a coalition of groups spanning the political spectrum and working with key Members of the House of Representatives reached substantial consensus on pursuing hearings and reform proposals for federal criminal justice reform. I am hopeful that the non-partisan spirit in which we worked will establish a foundation for sound, lasting reform as well as for greater trust and cooperation among reform-minded advocates and elected officials.
A Sweeping Scope Invites Abuses
HCPA undermines such efforts. Almost without exception, when discussing efforts over the last three years to work with Members of Congress and advocacy groups across the political and ideological spectrum to redress the federalization of truly local conduct, someone raises proposed federal "hate crimes" legislation as nearly irrefutable evidence that those on the left apparently have no objection to the federalization of crime when it benefits their constituents and political interests. HCPA is precisely the sort of legislation that undermines a principled basis for resisting federal criminalization of crimes that are truly local in nature and scope, including local gang crime, sex crime, and drug offenses.
From a federalism standpoint, the HCPA's "hate crimes" offenses are virtually indistinguishable from the proposed federal "gang-crime" offenses in legislation introduced in recent Congresses that my Heritage colleagues and I have criticized. Member of Congress on both sides of the aisle have communicated that they opposed on constitutional grounds the federalization of truly local crime, such as the conduct covered by the criminal offenses in these gang-crime bills. If passed, the HCPA would lay the foundation for more egregious federalization of local criminal conduct. Those who support or are considering supporting the HCPA must calculate whether they want to set a powerful precedent for the federal criminalization of, for example, truly local street crime (committed by alleged gang members) or possession or sale of relatively small amounts of illicit drugs and other controlled substances the next time the congressional balance of power shifts.
Every decent person abhors violent crimes that are motivated by bias or prejudice. Thus, the case for congressional legislation that would expand existing federal authority already prohibiting and punishing more severely some "hate crimes" may seem compelling.
The HCPA plays off of a powerful truth: Racially motivated violence is especially repugnant. The two new "hate crimes" offenses that the HCPA would create cover violent conduct that should be punished criminally as indeed it is under the laws of every state. While a central provision of the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that no state denies the equal protection of its laws, yet there is no serious argument that any particular state does not enforce its civil and criminal laws against violence in an even-handed manner today. Indeed, 45 of the 50 states have enacted "hate crimes" statutes that increase the punishment for crimes of violence and intimidation that are motivated by bias. What the benefits and problems from such motive-based statutes may turn out to be remains an open question, but the overwhelming trend in the states has been to increase such statutes in number and scope.
HCPA sweeps far more broadly than many state "hate crimes" statutes because, to begin with, neither of the two offenses in HCPA would actually require the government to prove that the accused was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hatred. The first new criminal offense in Section 7 of the HCPA merely states that the act must be "because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person," and the second similarly states that the act must be "because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person."
This amorphous standard would federalize almost all incidents of violent crime, even those that have nothing to do with bias, prejudice, or animus toward the victim because of his or her membership in a particular group. This approach of eliminating any requirement that the government must prove the defendant was motivated by bias, prejudice, or animus follows the novel approaches to "hate crimes" and bias-motivated crimes that are being promoted by some advocates and academics whose stated goal is "to continue to push to expand the legal conception of bias crime past the limited notions of what is ordinarily associated with the lay phrase hate crime."
Virtually every sexual assault resulting in bodily injury, for example, is committed "because of" the gender of the victim, the gender of the perpetrator, and the perpetrator's gender preferences. Many who commit robbery target women or those with real or perceived disabilities, believing that such victims may offer less resistance. It is even possible that a defendant could be deemed a "hate crimes" offender if he engaged in the violent conduct "because of" his own religion, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin or "because of" the religion, gender, national origin of a third party.
Further, both offenses state that it is a crime to "willfully cause or attempt to cause" bodily injury. The offenses would have been significantly clearer and narrower if they had been defined to punish anyone who, for example, "willfully inflicts bodily injury . . . or attempts to inflict bodily injury." The language actually used in the HCPA calls into question whether a person alleged to have incited "through words or actions" a second person to inflict bodily injury could also be charged under the theory that the first person "caused" the offense. In sum, the extent of application of the HCPA's two "hate crimes" offenses is exceedingly broad and poorly defined. The Act would federalize as "hate crimes" an enormous proportion of local violent crime.
Criminal offenses that are as ill-defined and overbroad as the "hate crimes" offenses in the HCPA invite prosecutorial abuse, politically motivated prosecutions, and similar injustices. Overbroad offenses allow prosecutors to pick and choose their defendants, tempting even well-intentioned prosecutors to succumb to public pressure to target alleged wrongdoers who are the focus of the media's attention and ire. What many law enforcement officials apparently fail to recognize is that when criminal laws are narrowly defined they serve as a public defense against accusations that a prosecution is politically motivated. Broad, vaguely defined offenses that encompass a wide range of conduct invite z'indeed, begzz" criticism that charges brought under them are politically motivated. This problem would be greatly exacerbated by HCPA's criminal offenses, for they would be used to provide special protections to favored groups. The unfairness of selective prosecutions benefiting some Americans more than others "whether it is real or merely perceived in any individual case" would greatly undermine the respect and confidence that federal criminal law enforcement should engender among all Americans.
Serious Constitutional Concerns
HCPA's sweeping scope raises even greater constitutional concerns than would legislation that restricted federal criminal jurisdiction to violent conduct motivated by bias, prejudice, or animus. Congress is a body of limited, enumerated powers. Unless the Constitution has granted Congress the power to legislate in an area, it cannot do so. Because the Constitution grants the federal government no general police power, Congress lacks the power to criminalize the vast majority of the violent, non-economic activity covered by the two principal criminal offenses in the HCPA. Despite the HCPA's findings and provisions attempting to accomplish it, the Act fails in its attempt to restrict the scope of the resulting federal criminal jurisdiction to subject matters falling within Congress's enumerated powers.
The constitutional bases offered by HCPA?s sponsors are unconvincing. The broader of the two new criminal offense in Section 7 of the HCPA purports to rely on Congress's Commerce Clause power "i.e., the power to" regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states. "But the offense would apply to anyone who," willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person.? This describes quintessentially violent, non-economic activity that has little or nothing to do with interstate commerce.
To be sure, probably all conduct can be shown to have some indirect or attenuated connection to interstate commerce, but such distant links are insufficient to bring conduct within Congress's commerce power. The Supreme Court has held that violent conduct that does not target economic activity is among the types of crime that have the least connection to Congress's commerce power. Yet it is precisely this sort of violent, non-economic conduct that HCPA would federalize.
In an attempt to insulate this overreaching from constitutional challenge, this offense includes a list of factors, at least one of which must be satisfied. Each of these factors requires the violent conduct, the perpetrator, or the victim to have something to do with commerce or interstate travel; however, the final factor, which permits a conviction if the activity merely "affects interstate commerce" in any attenuated manner, is broader than the constitutional standard and fatally undermines any limitation that this approach might otherwise provide.
Although some activities that would be covered by the offense could indeed involve interstate commerce in a non-trivial manner, this does not distinguish the provision from those the Supreme Court struck down in United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000). If this approach were permissible, Congress could claim to rely on the Commerce Clause and legislate any criminal law it wants. When it comes to criminal law, Congress would no longer be a body of limited, enumerated powers but would have plenary power to criminalize any and all conduct that is already criminalized by the states.
HCPA's other new criminal offense does not specify on which enumerated constitutional power the bills "sponsors rely, but the original findings" section, as well as some supporters, suggest reliance on the enforcement clauses of one or more of the three Civil War amendments. Of these, the Fourteenth Amendment provides Congress with the greatest power, but even it only prohibits state action, not private conduct unrelated to state action. While Congress clearly does have authority to punish state actors for racially discriminatory conduct and to pass other civil rights statutes to ensure that states do not deny citizens the equal protection of their laws, the Supreme Court held in Morrison that the Fourteenth Amendment does not authorize a federal tort action against private individuals, not acting under color of law, who perpetrate violence against women.
The HCPA's attempt to find its power to criminalize in the Thirteenth Amendment is also unavailing. The scope of the Thirteenth Amendment grant of power to Congress to abolish slavery and involuntary servitude includes power to eliminate "badges, incidents, and relics" of slavery and involuntary servitude. While the Court has not defined the scope of that power, it has never found it to encompass conduct other than involuntary servitude and racial discrimination that denies citizens of some races the rights "enjoyed by white citizens." It is not serious, then, to equate all violence that involves persons belonging to groups to which Congress wants to give preferred protections with a "badge or relic" of slavery. Further, by its very terms the HCPA would apply equally to violence against a white victim if the crime occurred "because of" his race. Whatever the Court might determine is the scope of the power to remove the relics of slavery today (and this power was much easier to conceptualize at the time the Supreme Court first addressed it in 1883 while Congress could still help remove the incidents of slavery from actual freed slaves), it cannot be so broad.
Finally, in a similarly unavailing attempt to insulate the bill from constitutional attack, HCPA would require the Justice Department to "certify" that contemplated prosecutions under its "hate crimes" offenses meet certain conditions, such as that the state in which the conduct occurred does not object to the federal usurpation of the state's constitutional authority and jurisdiction. But the unconstitutionality of a statute cannot be "cured" by a ministerial certification or by state acquiescence to an improper assertion of federal authority. Most states joined briefs supporting the purported need for the provision in the Violence Against Women Act that the Supreme Court properly struck down at the beginning of this decade in the Morrison case. The limits on Congress's powers were designed to protect the individual rights of national citizens, not the states qua states. In short, a state can no more acquiesce to, and thereby cure, a violation of constitutional federalism than the federal courts can sanction a President's violation of the constitutional separation of powers.
Constitutional federalism is no mere theoretical nicety. Like all constitutional limitations on the power of government, constitutional federalism is a vital safeguard for the rights and liberties of the people. James Madison, the leading member of the Constitutional Convention and perhaps the greatest champion of ratification, called constitutional federalism a "double security . . . on the rights of the people." Violating constitutional federalism leads to injustice, including the injustice of circumventing the constitutional right and protection against double jeopardy by trying a citizen twice for the same conduct. This problem was outlined in the April 22 letter from the chairman and three members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission opposing the "hate crimes" bill that is the House of Representatives' companion to the HCPA. This is just one of the ways that the HCPA's unconstitutional provisions would put citizens? rights at risk.
Unnecessary and Counterproductive
It cannot be over-emphasized that the fact that the federal Constitution does not authorize Congress to address particular conduct does not mean that such conduct must be left unpunished. In the case of "hate crimes," the underlying violent conduct is punishable as a crime in every state, regardless of the motivation of the perpetrator or identity of the victim. Further, almost every state has adopted criminal offenses that increase the penalty for certain violent crimes deemed to be "hate crimes." Irrespective of whether such enhancements are prudent and beneficial to the overall aims of justice, they do not exceed the states' authority. And they do not undermine the ultimate responsibility and accountability of state and local officials to investigate and prosecute such crime.
Violent crime is always a serious problem, but unnecessary federal criminal offenses such as those in the HCPA detract from effective state-level law enforcement strategies. Congress must tread very carefully when bringing federal criminal law to bear on any problem at the state and local level. Federal criminal law should be used to combat only those problems reserved to the national government in the Constitution. These include offenses against the federal government or its interests, responsibilities the Constitution expressly assigns to the federal government (such as counterfeiting), and commercial crimes with a substantial multi-state or international impact.
Federalizing the exceedingly broad category of truly local conduct that would be criminalized by HCPA's two new offenses is certain to accelerate the ongoing erosion of state and local law enforcement's primary role in combating common street crime. Doing so invites serious unintended consequences, including the dilution of accountability among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The best way to combat violent crime (regardless of to which group or groups its perpetrators and victims belong) is to adhere to federalist principles that respect the proper allocation of responsibilities among national, state, and local governments.
The HCPA perpetuates Congress's dangerous trend of unjustified criminalization of more and more conduct, even conduct that the Constitution assigns to the sole jurisdiction of state and local officials. Seeing as the Department of Justice itself has not been able to number all federal statutory offenses - not to mention the thousands or tens of thousands of criminal offenses in federal regulations - it seems safe to say that no Member of Congress knows all of the conduct that is criminalized. The best scholarly estimate is that as of 2008 there were over 4,450 separate crimes in the federal statute books, and Congress continues to create an average of over one new crime a week.
The dynamic that leads to this proliferation of unnecessary criminal law is primarily political. In its comprehensive 1998 report on the federalization of crime, the ABA noted evidence it had received that "many" new federal laws are passed not because federal prosecution of these crimes is necessary but because federal crime legislation in general is thought to be politically popular. President Obama observed a similar dynamic when he was a state legislator in Illinois.
While no criminal offense is created without political support, some of the worst result from vocal constituencies leveraging high-profile crimes. The situation today, after multiple high-profile shootings, is not unlike the circumstances in which Congress federalized all carjackings. Nearly all carjackings happen within a single state, yet the federalization of this crime illustrates the political dynamics influencing members of both major parties and leading to the over-federalization of crime. Suburban wife and mother Pam Basu was dragged to death in 1992 near her home in Maryland. She was trying to ward off carjackers and protect her two-year-old daughter who was still in the car. The heinousness of this crime translated into bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress for new federal criminalization. Legislation federalizing carjacking was introduced by a Democratic Congressman, and it was signed by a Republican president. The public outrage over the crime, fueled by extensive and incendiary media coverage, resulted in bipartisan political pressure for a new federal criminal offense that violates constitutional federalism. Despite the calls for federal criminalization, the carjackers in Basu's case were fully prosecuted and brought to justice under Maryland law that was already on the books at the time of the offense. Both men were convicted and given life sentences.
The HCPA exemplifies these same dynamics. The new offenses in the Act are all based on quintessentially non-economic, violent crime "willfully causing or attempting to cause bodily injury" that is criminalized in every U.S. state and territory. No evidence exists that the states are routinely or systematically failing to enforce their laws against intentionally inflicting bodily injury, even if the victims are members of one of the groups to which the HCPA would grant greater protections and elevated status. No evidence exists that states are routinely or systematically failing to enforce their own "hate crimes" laws. Isolated cases that federal law enforcement, Members of Congress, or certain constituents would have handled differently - and even isolated cases of injustice, as improper and outrageous as they may be - do not and cannot justify ignoring constitutional limitations on Congress's authority to criminalize.
Despite what has recently been suggested in this Committee, it is far from clear that recent events, such as the tragic shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, provide justification for a federal ?hate crimes? statue that federalizes truly local crime. Federal law enforcement?s responses to the Holocaust Museum shootings lend substantial support to the view that existing law is sufficient. As news reports and an affidavit supporting the Department of Justice's criminal complaint against the shooter indicate, he targeted persons of Jewish descent and should receive society's greatest moral censure and be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But there is every reason to believe that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in cooperation with the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and U.S. Park Police, will fully investigate the shooting and that the Justice Department will aggressively prosecute the shooter. Indeed, the Justice Department has already filed a criminal complaint against him alleging that he committed murder in the first degree (in violation of 18 U.S.C. [Sec.] 1111) and that he killed in the course of possessing a firearm in a federal facility (in violation of 18 U.S.C. [Sec.] 930(b) and 930(c)). If the shooter is convicted of murder in the first degree, he will face a mandatory sentence of either death or life imprisonment.
In short, the offender will be brought to justice without the HCPA and faces the harshest criminal punishments in the American criminal justice system. The Holocaust Museum shooting provides no support for the argument that the new "hate crimes" offenses are necessary or salutary.
Conclusion
To conclude, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (S. 909; HCPA) fails to measure up to the basic standards that describe a criminal law that can command the trust and respect of all Americans because it is principled, constitutional, and inherently fair. The HCPA would substantially undermine constitutional federalism and the high regard in which the American public should hold the federal criminal justice system. The three main problems with the HCPA's "hate crimes" offenses are that they:
1. Are far broader and more amorphous than any properly defined criminal offense should be, thus inviting prosecutorial abuse, politically motivated prosecutions, and related injustices;
2. Violate constitutional federalism by asserting federal law-enforcement power to police truly local conduct over which the Constitution has reserved sole authority to the 50 states; and
3. Would be superfluous and likely to be counterproductive, for nearly all states have tough "hate crimes" laws and the violent conduct underlying the Act's "hate crimes" offenses has always been criminalized in all 50 states.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sessions, and Members of the Committee for this opportunity to address the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (S. 909). I look forward to providing additional information and answering any questions you may have.
Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing
"The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009"
Gail Heriot - member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Government Press Releases (USA)
June 26, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. I am Gail Heriot, a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Several weeks ago, the Commission voted to send a letter to members of the Senate Leadership opposing S. 909. I am here to answer any questions about that letter and to elaborate on my reasons as an individual commissioner for joining in that letter.
Americans were horrified by the brutal murders of James Byrd in Jasper, Texas and Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming a decade ago. More recently, the murders of Angie Zapata and Stephen Johns have shocked and saddened us all. There ought to be a law, some people have said, preferably a federal one.
Of course, there is a law. Murder is a serious crime everywhere regardless of its motive and it has been from the advent of our civilization. Indeed, all but a few states have additional special hate crimes statutes. To my knowledge, no one is claiming that state or D.C. authorities have been neglecting their duty to enforce the law. Matthew Shepard's tormentors are now serving life sentences; James Byrd's are on death row awaiting execution. A Colorado jury recently convicted Zapata's killer of murder, and the same will almost certainly happen to James von Brunn if he lives long enough to be prosecuted and is found competent to stand trial.
Of course, miscarriages of justice occasionally occur. The American system of criminal justice, which requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, errs on the side of failure to convict the guilty. But I know of no reason to suspect that it errs in that direction more often in the case of crimes that are inspired by bias. To the contrary, I would suspect that given the high profile that serious bias crimes tend to have, it errs less often.
Unfortunately, tragedies like these bias-inspired murders quickly became an opportunity for political grandstanding. False and reckless claims that hate crimes are "epidemic" and "on the rise" are all too easily made. The proposed federal hate crimes legislation, however, which is being touted as a response to these murders, shouldn't have been treated as a mere photo opportunity. It's real legislation with real world consequences-and not all of them are good. A close examination of its consequences, especially its consequences for federalism and double jeopardy protections, is therefore in order.
Hate Crimes Statutes Generally: All hate crimes statutes, even those that have been adopted at the state level, raise significant issues:
* Why should James Byrd's or Matthew Shepard's killers be treated differently from Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Kaczynski? Hate crimes are surely horrible, but there are other crimes that are equally, if not more, horrible.
* What happens if hate crimes statutes aren't enforced evenhandedly? Some crime statistics show that an African American is more likely to commit a racially-inspired murder of a white than the other way around. Should all be punished as hate crimes? Or just those that fit the white supremacist James von Brunn stereotype?
*What is gained by defining crimes in such a way that prosecutors must prove that the defendant's actions were motivated by racial or sexual animus? Is it enough to justify what is lost? When prosecutors are busy marshalling the extra evidence necessary for a hate crime prosecution, doesn't something have to give? Shouldn't our prosecutorial resources be deployed more efficiently?
* Will hate crimes statutes really make women and minorities feel that the law takes their safety seriously? Or might it have just the opposite effect? Sooner or later, a high profile crime will occur that some citizens strongly believe ought to be prosecuted as a hate crime. Rightly or wrongly, the prosecution will decline to prosecute it as such or the jury will convict only on the underlying crime and not on the hate crime charge. As a result, those citizens will wind up feeling cheated-when they would have felt completely vindicated had no hate crime statute ever existed.
Americans may disagree in good faith about whether such laws will in the end help or hurt harmony in the community. The proposed federal hate crimes legislation, however, has special problems of overreach with implications for federalism and double jeopardy protections. These problems should cause even those who favor state hate crime statutes to question the desirability of a federal statute.
Current Federal Law: Under current law, adopted in 1969, federal authorities may bring a prosecution for a crime because it was motivated by the victim's "race, color, religion or national origin" only to protect the victim's right to engage in certain "federally protected activities." For example, if the defendant prevented a black woman from enrolling in a public school or from travelling by common carrier because she is black, he has committed a federal offense. This statutory provision does not purport to be and is not a hate crimes statute. It was enacted to enforce the rights recognized by the courts or enacted by Congress during the Civil Rights Era. This was, of course, a time when there was genuine reason to fear that state authorities might not enforce the law.
The New Proposal: S. 909, entitled the "Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009" would remove the requirement that the victim be engaged in a federally-protected activity and would expand the list of protected categories to include actual or perceived "gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability" in addition to the "race, color, religion and national origin" already covered in the federal criminal code. Any crime fitting that description in which the defendant "willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person" may be fined and imprisoned for up to 10 ten years. If death results or "the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill," the defendant may be sentenced to life in prison.
These changes will vastly expand the reach of the federal criminal code. Back in 1998, attorneys at the Department of Justice, eager to expand federal authority, drafted language for the bill that would create federal jurisdiction over many cases that can't honestly be regarded as hate crimes-at least not as that term is understood by most Americans. The fact is that, despite the misleading use of the words "hate crime," MSHCPA does not actually require that the defendant be inspired by hatred in order to convict. It is sufficient if he acts "because of" someone's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. Consider:
*Rapists are seldom indifferent to the gender of their victims. They are always chosen "because of" their gender.
*A thief might well steal only from the disabled because, in general, they are less able to defend themselves. Literally, they're chosen "because of" their disability.
* Suppose a burglar is surprised when the husband and wife who reside in the home return earlier than expected. The burglar shoots the husband and kills him, but finding himself unable to shoot a woman, turns and runs. Again, literally, the husband was killed "because of " his gender.
This wasn't just sloppy draftsmanship. The language was chosen deliberately. Officials understandably wanted something susceptible to broad construction, in part because it makes prosecutions easier. As a staff member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary back in 1998, I had several conversations with DOJ representatives. They repeatedly refused to disclaim the view that all rape will be covered, and resisted efforts to correct any ambiguity by re-drafting the language. They wanted a bill with broad sweep. The last thing they wanted was to limit the scope of the statute's reach by requiring that the defendant be motivated by ill will toward the victim's group.
Among other things, this creates an efficiency problem. State hate crimes laws give prosecutors an extra weapon, to be used or not used as they see fit. Federal laws, on the other hand, bring in a new cast of characters to prosecute the same crimes that are already being handled by state authorities. While efforts can be made to minimize the tension, turf battles are inevitable as ambitious prosecutors jockey for position over big cases. The result is that resources are diverted away from frontline crime fighting.
What justification exists for this redundancy? Back in 1998, Administration officials argued that it was needed, because state procedures often make it difficult to obtain convictions. They cited a Texas case involving an attack on several black men by three white hoodlums. Texas law required the three defendants to be tried separately. By prosecuting them under federal law, however, they could have been tried together. As a result, admissions made by one could be introduced into evidence at the trial of all three without falling foul of the hearsay rule.
One might expect that argument to send up red flags among civil libertarian groups like the ACLU. But political correctness seems to have caused them to abandon their traditional role as advocates for the accused. Still, the argument cries out: Isn't this just an end-run around state procedures designed to ensure a fair trial? The citizens of Texas evidently believe that separate trials are necessary to ensure innocent men and women are not punished. No one is claiming that Texas applies this rule only when the victim is black or gay. And surely no one is arguing that Texans are soft on crime. Why interfere with their judgment?
The Double Jeopardy Issue in Particular: The double jeopardy issue stands out among the problems created by the proposed statute (as well as other proposed expansions of the federal criminal code). It is also the issue that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights featured most prominently in its letter to the Senate leadership opposing S. 909.
School children are taught that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." They are seldom taught, however, about the dual sovereignty rule, which holds that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply when separate sovereign governments prosecute the same defendant. As the Supreme Court put it in United States v. Lanza, a defendant who violates the laws of two sovereigns has "committed two different offenses by the same act, and [therefore] a conviction by a court [of one sovereign] of the offense that [sovereign] is not a conviction of the different offense against the [other sovereign] and so is not double jeopardy." A state cannot oust the federal government from jurisdiction by prosecuting first; similarly the federal government cannot oust the state. Indeed, New Jersey cannot oust New York from jurisdiction over a crime over which they both have authority, so in theory at least a defendant may face as many of 51 prosecutions for the same incident.
The doctrine is founded upon considerations that are real and understandable. If a state has the power to oust the federal government from jurisdiction by beating it to the "prosecutorial punch," it can, in effect, veto the implementation of federal policy (and vice versa). In 1922, the Court in Lanza put it in terms of Prohibition, which was then hotly controversial. Allowing a state to "punish the manufacture, transportation and sale of intoxicating liquor by small or nominal fines," it wrote, will lead to "a race of offenders to the courts of that State to plead guilty and secure immunity from federal prosecution."
But the dual sovereignty doctrine is still at best troubling. And its most troubling aspect is that it applies even when the defendant has been acquitted of the same offense in the first court and is now being re-tried. Prosecutors in effect have two bites at the apple (or in a case in which two or more States are concerned, three, four, or five bites). The potential for abuse should be of concern to all Americans.
In the past, opportunities for such double prosecutions seldom arose, since so few federal crimes were on the books. But with the explosive growth of the federal criminal code in the last few decades, this is no longer true. The nation is facing the real possibility that double prosecutions could become routinely available to federal prosecutors who wish to employ them.
S. 909 would add substantially to the problem in two ways. By declining to require that the defendant be motivated by hatred or even malice in order to establish a "hate crime," it would vastly expand the reach of the federal criminal code. A creative prosecutor will be able to charge defendants in a very broad range of cases-cases that ordinary users of the English language would never term "hate crimes." And it makes the most controversial cases-those that were arguably motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, etc.-front and center on the federal stage.
It should come as no surprise that re-prosecutions are common in cases that are emotionally-charged-cases like the Rodney King prosecutions and the Crown Heights murders. As Judge Guido Calabresi put it:
"Among the important examples of successive federal-state prosecution are (1) the federal prosecution of the Los Angeles police officers accused of using excessive force on motorist Rodney King after their acquittal on state charges, (2) the federal prosecution of an African-American youth accused of murdering a Hasidic Jew in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, New York, after his acquittal on state charges, and (3) the Florida state prosecution-seeking the death penalty-of the anti-abortion zealot who had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in federal court for killing an abortion doctor."
While Judge Calabresi expressed no opinion about the merits of these cases, he noted that "there can be no doubt that all of these cases involved re-prosecutions in emotionally and politically charged contexts" and that it was "to avoid political pressures for the re-prosecution that the Double Jeopardy Clause was adopted." It "is especially troublesome," he stated, "that the dual sovereignty doctrine keeps the Double Jeopardy Clause from protecting defendants whose punishment, after an acquittal or an allegedly inadequate sentence, is the object of public attention and political concern."
Hate crimes are perhaps the most emotionally-charged criminal issue in the nation today. According to CCN's Kyra Phillips, "Thousands of people converg[ed] on the U.S. Justice Department" on November 16, 2007 "demanding more federal prosecutions of hate crimes." Can anyone seriously argue that political pressure of this sort will have no effect on the judgment of federal officials? Indeed, even before S. 909 has passed, advocacy groups have been calling for its use to overturn particular state court acquittals.
Proponents of the bill argue that the actual risk of abuse at the Department of Justice is quite minimal. DOJ has its own internal guidelines, know as the "Petite Policy," under which it limits double prosecutions to cases that meet certain standards. Unfortunately, the standards are vague. For example, they authorize double prosecutions whenever there are "substantial federal interests demonstrably unvindicated" by successful state procedures. Under ordinary circumstances those federal interests are undefined and undefinable. In this case, however, the potential for abuse is the result of the law's clarity. S. 909 specifically refers to "the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence." That means essentially that if federal prosecutors want to bring a hate crimes prosecution after a state declines to prosecute, a state court acquits or a state court fails to sentence the defendant as harshly as federal prosecutors think is appropriate, the Petite Policy will never stand in their way. Moreover, courts have consistently held that a criminal defendant cannot invoke the Petite policy as a bar to federal prosecution.
Conclusion: No one can deny the horror of violent crimes inspired by hatred of any kind. This is something upon which all decent people can agree. But it is precisely in those situations-where all decent people agree on the need to "do something"-that mistakes are made. Passage of the vaguely-worded prohibitions in S. 909 would be a giant step toward the federalization of all crime. Given the many civil liberties issues that would raise, including the routine potential of double jeopardy prosecutions, this is a step that members of the Senate should think twice before they take.
Farrah Fawcett's "Burning Bed" legacy
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
Author/Byline: Trudy Schuett
June 27, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Farrah Fawcett will mostly be remembered as a Charlie’s Angels chick and a pinup girl, but her performance in the Burning Bed was a durable, yet regrettable legacy. Sadly, the 1984 made-for-TV movie that portrayed premeditated murder as not only excusable, but heroic, won’t go with her.
Of course, Fawcett herself should not blamed for the establishment of a myth that propelled a skewed view of domestic violence into the forefront of public consciousness. She was, after all, only an actress playing a part, and playing it well.
The movie however, helped establish a framework for dozens of later theatrical and TV movies that depict men as dangerous, violent abusers and women as saintly victims with nowhere to turn for help. Even after 25 years, this story of a single extraordinary case, exaggerated for effect, has become omnipresent. The male character is generally accepted as typical, and murder is sanctioned if not openly encouraged as a solution to the problem. Later films such as Sleeping With the Enemy starring Julia Roberts, built on the myth and added the aspect of relentless stalking, also extraordinary in the real world. Other movies added more, and there is now a whole TV network devoted to almost nothing but the theme of awful, despicable men vs. glamorous female victims.
The book by Faith McNulty and the movie opened the door for feminist political ideology masquerading as scientific theory, fully applicable to all cases of intimate partner abuse. When Lenore Walker created the “Battered Woman Syndrome” around the same time as the release of the movie, it was accepted as gospel and formed the basis for public policies and laws that eventually would attempt to hold women blameless for a wide range of crimes, from shoplifting to 1st degree murder.
Also around the same time, give or take a few years, the Duluth Model for dealing with abusers, (exclusively male) was developed by a small group of previously-abused women who were attending feminist consciousness-raising sessions at a shelter founded by feminist lawyers. This model holds that abuse is a deliberate choice, and all men have to do is recognize what pigs they are and they will stop their incorrect behavior.
Ten years on, in 1994, the federal Violence Against Women Act codified into law the entire package of myth-making and storytelling relating to Battered Women Theory, and called it Domestic Violence. Holding men “accountable” for their repugnant actions through a system of legal sanctions depriving them of their human rights, homes, their children and often their livelihoods, VAWA allows women and feminist organizations to get revenge, and profit by it. As it is a law focused on the destruction of men, with single-pointed precision, the negative effects of the law on children and yes, even women go unconsidered.
One wonders what the next ten years will bring.
In 1984 cable TV was still new; the majority of households got off-the-air broadcast TV, and so viewers of any particular program would number in the tens of millions. Even if most people of the time saw it, certainly there were many more factors than a single movie involved in the evolution of the way society deals with intimate partner abuse today, but I have no doubt the Burning Bed was a catalyst.
A hundred years from now, perhaps historians will look back in wonder at the bizarre events of the late 20th and early 21st centuries and speculate why it was that society turned on itself in this way.
Lynn Rosenthal is no advocate for women
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
July 4, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
A reader pointed out a New York Times editorial lauding the appointment of Lynn Rosenthal as domestic violence czar. While the editorial encompasses some factual errors, it does a quite efficient job of illustrating the breadth and depth of the general misunderstanding regarding the issue of partner abuse.
In this article, I’ll go thru the Times piece point-by-point and explain where the Times, and in fact, most people, have the wrong idea. The Times statements are in bold.
Domestic violence is a serious law enforcement and public health problem affecting as many as one in four women in this country.
While there can be no disagreement that domestic violence is a serious problem, there is no evidence that "one in four" women are affected. This is only an opinion formulated by those in the industry, based on wishful thinking and a desire to keep funding rolling in to existing programs. It also ignores the concept that men are equally affected; a concept illustrated time and again by objective study, some of which has been done by those same existing programs.
Yet Washington has devoted too little attention to reducing domestic violence and sexual assaults generally. We welcome President Obama’s decision to create a new post, White House adviser on violence against women, and his appointment of a seasoned advocate for victims to fill it.
The fact that the announcement of the appointee was relegated to the Vice President, rather than the President, sends a clear message that this administration does not consider the issue to be of prime importance. It may come as a surprise to many that Ms Rosenthal is no advocate for women, rather she is only an advocate for the feminist political viewpoint regarding the issue. Her background bears this out:
Lynn Rosenthal is a former executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. She will report to Mr. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, whose keen interest in the issue dates from his days in the Senate and his key role in enacting the 1994 Violence Against Women Act.
NNEDV has from its earliest days, promoted the questionable “solution” of divorce as the only approach to the issue. It has been instrumental in denying women the practical help they want and need, choosing instead to ignore realities and propagate feminist political theory.
Vice President Biden has been sadly misguided in his key role in creating VAWA. By establishing an incorrect perception of a human problem, and codifying it into law as a political and gender issue, while also establishing a special victim class in society, the Vice President has simply managed to stall progress and keep the issue firmly planted in a bygone era. Only time will tell the extent of the damage done.
Had the needs of women been considered at the time, rather than the goals of the feminist political lobby, a far more equitable and effective law may have been the result; if in fact government intervention would have been recognized as advantageous at all.
Ms. Rosenthal’s challenge, and the administration’s, will be to improve the carrying out of existing laws intended to protect women, starting with better coordination of the activities of all the government bureaucracies involved, including the Justice Department, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Improvement in the implementation of existing laws is sorely needed. However, there can be little hope of that with a feminist political operative at the helm.
A national survey of domestic violence shelters released in May showed a significant increase in the number of women seeking assistance since last fall, a rise largely attributable to the stresses of the economic crisis and rising unemployment. States need to set up more emergency shelters and find more transitional housing for people fleeing violent situations. And they must do more to help these victims rebuild their lives.
Just because women are seeking assistance cannot be construed as a need for more shelter programs. Partner abuse affects families at all socioeconomic levels, most of whom can arrange for a place to go in time of crisis. In the 21st century, women as well as men need counseling and guidance to help them deal with their own issue in a way that best suits their families.
There is no need whatsoever for more shelters. The need is for the existing shelters to manage their programs in such a way that includes those who want that kind of help, while excluding those who use (and abuse) the service for other reasons. Shelter capacity has risen dramatically in the last few decades, and as they expand, these programs continue to repeat the same mistakes, and as a result only serve a tiny minority of bona fide victims of partner abuse.
If compassionate, and realistic consideration was given to the issue of partner abuse in the first place, far fewer people would need to "rebuild their lives" once the current system was done with them.
Ms. Rosenthal will need to tackle bureaucratic and legal hurdles and find more money to help states, localities and charitable groups address those needs.
Despite the billions of dollars constantly flowing to the domestic violence industry, it continues to underperform. Again, there is little hope of the industry getting support at the federal level for the needed adjustments in both programs and guiding concepts with a feminist political operative serving as advisor to the Obama administration.
It is well known that communities eagerly support successful programs and agencies. Since few shelter programs have ever demonstrated publicly any success at all, it is questionable whether more public money would be an improvement.
She must also help end the scandal of the thousands of rape kits sitting untested in crime labs and police storage facilities across the country, allowing countless criminals to escape punishment.
As this is clearly a separate, unrelated issue, one could be forgiven for wondering why it was included in the discussion at all. That is because VAWA makes no distinctinction between personal and governmental issues, and conflates crimes perpetrated by strangers with difficulties in an intimate relationship. The feminist view is that all women are victims; all men are perpetrators. That is the fatal flaw of VAWA: it entirely ignores the human element.
VAWA becomes a vehicle for wish-list funding
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
July 15, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Congress spends approx. 1 billion taxpayer dollars each year with the stated intent of eliminating domestic violence, the largest portion of that amount being the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). They are poised to increase funding even further next year when they vote on a 5 year reauthorization of VAWA. One would think that this much money should have greatly reduced domestic violence by now. But VAWA spending has had little or no effect on reducing domestic violence.
Since the passage of VAWA is a virtual slam-dunk, those who benefit financially from this law are emboldened to demand more and more with each reauthorization. So legislation that's only tangentially related to domestic violence – legislation that could never pass on its own merits – finds it way into VAWA.
One graphic example of the state of things at present is the way VAWA undermines immigration law.
Immigration: VAWA actually encourages foreign nationals to scheme to destroy the livelihoods and reputations of innocent U.S. citizens, just so they can gain permanent residency. Under language enacted in the 2005 VAWA reauthorization, a non-citizen's unproven claim of domestic violence by a U.S. citizen leads to automatic legal status and eventual citizenship. Make up the right kind of story and you don't have to deal with that bothersome two year waiting period, or that annoying interview by immigration officials. There will be no review of the truth of your accusation, and evidence that the accused spouse might want to present in his own defense will be disallowed. This Alice-Through-The-Looking-Glass policy leads to the worst kind of marriage fraud – scamming innocent Americans into marriage then accusing them of domestic violence at the first opportunity.
For next year's reauthorization, they've formed eighteen committees to dream up their wish-list. It's not possible to know right now just what their demands will be, but recent bills introduced in Congress offer clues to what sort of non-domestic-violence-related things they may ask for.
Workplace: HR 739 is a bill currently in Congress. The bill would make domestic violence victims a new class with special privileges. Under the bill, a domestic violence victim would be entitled to lifetime employment benefits! This includes the right to employee health insurance, and the right to sue employers over higher and firing decisions. And since this would apply to people who self-refer, removing the need to provide proof, such a law would act as an incentive to make up a story. In these times of massive job losses, such a law would create an epidemic of false accusations, destroying the lives of millions of innocent people.
International: In the last Congress, an international version of VAWA dubbed I-VAWA was introduced in both the House and Senate. Oblivious to the fact that the U.S. version of VAWA has serious flaws that have undermined the basic freedoms and legal protections that once characterized the U.S. as a free society, I-VAWA's sponsors proposed to use the power of the purse to impose the same flawed laws on foreign countries. Many members of Congress have expressed concern that our unilateral action in Iraq has increased foreign countries' resentment of the U.S. That resentment will pale in comparison to the resentment that will result if in the next reauthorization of VAWA, Congress assumes the right to impose legislation on other countries by incorporating I-VAWA-like language.
No matter what you believe about labor policy, foreign policy or immigration these things clearly don't belong in a bill whose stated purpose is to prevent domestic violence. Combining these issues with domestic violence encourages people to make false domestic violence claims in exchange for government benefits.
Please contact Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, at 202-224-4124. Tell him that VAWA needs to focus on domestic violence and not stray into unrelated issues. Cite some of the examples above and ask him to include some of these items in the Judiciary Committee's hearings on reauthorizing VAWA. As always be polite.
Pelosi to National Association of Women Judges: 'You are Truly Changing the Face of Justice in America'
PR Newswire (USA)
July 15, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke at the fourth annual meeting of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues and the National Association of Women Judges (NAWJ) this morning in the Capitol. Below are the Speaker's remarks as prepared.
"Thank you, Judge [La Tia] Martin, for that kind introduction, and for the efforts that have been at the center of your presidency of NAWJ: encouraging young women at every educational level to pursue careers in law.
"I would also like to recognize Judge Juanita Bing Newton, your meeting chair, and welcome you all back to Capitol Hill for the fourth time in the 40th year of your organization.
"I also want to thank the bipartisan co-chairs of Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois and Congresswoman Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, for their outstanding leadership on women's issues and for helping to organize today's event.
"Because of the efforts of the NAWJ, there are more young women in law school, more women lawyers, and more women judges than at any time in American history. You are truly changing the face of justice in America.
"I would like to recognize Melanne Verveer, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues for the work she is doing at the State Department to combat violence and that all of you are doing to combat domestic violence in the United States. As we mark the 15th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act, Congress will remain committed to providing funding to prevent violence against women.
"Tina Tchen of the White House Council for Women and Girls is our partner in all of Congress's efforts on behalf of women.
"And I would like to acknowledge all of you. The judiciary -- at all levels -- serves as guardian of our Constitution, our individual rights, the rule of law, and is a model to the rest of the world. Thank you for all that you do keep our nation and its fundamental values strong.
"In keeping with America's fundamental values, I am so proud to see the nation's highest court reflect the diversity of America with the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
"It is appropriate that the National Association of Women Judges joined President Obama at the White House for the historic moment when he nominated Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. This is a moment you helped to ensure.
"Judge Sotomayor's life story is a testament to the American values of equality, opportunity, and justice. Her outstanding intellectual achievements make her one of the most qualified nominees in many years.
"And hasn't she just excelled in her hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee? I know she will make an outstanding Supreme Court Justice for many years to come.
"As the NAWJ has been working to ensure fairness and gender equality in American courts, I have committed that in this Congress, we will put women and children first.
"One of the first bills Congress passed, and the very first bill President Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, so that women who are victims of pay discrimination get their day in court.
"We also passed the Paycheck Fairness Act which takes affirmative steps to ensure that women earn what men earn for doing the same job - and we hope the Senate will pass this bill as well.
"But nothing is more essential to equality and opportunity for all Americans than passing health care reform. Yesterday was a happy day for because we introduced historic and transformative legislation that will benefit all Americans -- America's Affordable Health Choices Act. It is a health insurance act for the great middle class of America.
"Over the coming weeks, Congress will continue working with President Obama to make health care reform work for middle-class Americans. This bill is a starting point and a path to success. To lower costs to consumers and businesses, to give greater choice to Americans, including keeping your doctor or plan if you like them, better quality of care putting doctors, not insurance companies back in charge, and to provide stability and peace of mind that you cannot be denied care or coverage for a pre-existing condition.
"You have come to Capitol Hill at an historic time - both as the Sotomayor hearings happen on the other side of the Capitol and as both the House and the Senate work to pass historic and transformative health care reform.
"I thank you all for what you are doing every day to promote justice -from the bench and in helping our judicial leaders reflect the diversity of America."
SOURCE Office of the Speaker of the House
Many victims of domestic violence do not report abuse
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action/SIA
July 20, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Millions of domestic violence victims every year do not report abuse to law enforcement. It is hard to know exactly how common domestic is, because victims often do nott report it.
According to a recent survey conducted by a national crime victims organization in California, the top three reasons domestic violence victims victims don't report the abuse are: 1.) Fear. Many victims are too afraid that if they report the abuse the batterer will kill them, harm their children or other family members and pets. 2.) Reporting domestic violence can be demoralizing. Victims are ashamed and often too embarrassed to report to law enforcement. Many victims suffer in silence believing that they some how deserve to be abused emotionally or physically. 3.) No guarantee that reporting will lead to an arrest or conviction. More and more victims of domestic violence are being warned by domestic violence agencies and organizations that reporting the abuse will not necessarily lead to an arrest or a conviction. In California in particular, facing a dire budget crisis and prison over population often lead to early release of batterers and little if any jail time.
Regardless if victims report the abuse to a law enforcement agency or not one thing that advocates and domestic violence service providers reiterated is the need for victims and their children to seek counseling and support services to overcome the trauma that is associated with domestic violence. Many victims develop post traumatic stress disorder and are in need of counseling and therapy in order to become survivors. Counselors are available in most counties throughout the state that provide free counseling to victims as well as their children and loved one's in need. Victims are also encouraged to visit the California Employment Development Department web site for information regarding domestic violence victims rights in the workplace.
The Violence We Ignore
Talk of the Nation [NPR] (USA)
July 20, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
NEAL CONAN, host: And now the TALK OF THE NATION Opinion Page. Google murder-suicide and stories about the death of former pro quarterback Steve McNair pop right up. The phrase domestic violence is mentioned in just a few of them. In a recent op-ed in the Baltimore Sun, Dr. Ned Holstein and Glenn Sacks argued that men are routinely overlooked as victims of domestic violence by law enforcement, by the judicial system, and by the media.
What is your experience? Is it wrong to assume the man is usually the perpetrator and the woman, the victim? 800-989-8255, email us: talk@npr.org. And you can join the conversation at our Web site. That’s at npr.org, click on TALK OF THE NATION.
Dr. Ned Holstein joins us now from the studios of member station WBUR in Boston. He is the co-author of the op-ed “The Violence We Ignore” with Glenn Sacks. And nice to have you on the program today.
Dr. NED HOLSTEIN (Founder, Fathers & Families): Great to be here, Neal.
CONAN: And the McNair situation, obviously one anecdote, but you’re right. None of those stories mention this as an incident of domestic violence, or very few.
Dr. HOLSTEIN: Well, it almost never happens.
CONAN: Why?
Dr. HOLSTEIN: Well, I think that there is a sort of cultural resistance to acknowledging that women too can often be violent. And beyond general attitudes, we also have the specific attitudes of what I’ll - what I’m going to call the domestic violence establishment that specifically denies that female- perpetrated domestic violence is much of a factor at all.
CONAN: What evidence do we have as to who initiates the violence most of the time, who’s responsible?
Dr. HOLSTEIN: Let me say this to begin with that I’m not really interested in a blame game and Fathers & Families is not really interested in a blame game. But what we are interested in is protecting everybody - men, women and children. And to do that, we have to take account of reality. There are over 200 studies now that clearly show that women perpetrate, and I would say more than that initiate domestic violence at rates that are about equal to those of men.
Now, there is one important disproportion. Because men are stronger, more women are injured. Women account for about two-thirds of the injuries and men account for about one-third of the injuries. But nevertheless, the incidence - of initiation of domestic violence by women is quite substantial. And if we want to protect people, we have to have open eyes about this and think about it clearly.
CONAN: And you argue in your op-ed that, in fact, a lot of the laws in this country, and obviously these vary state by state, but a lot of the laws in this country presume that in most situations the women is the victim and the man, the perpetrator.
Dr. HOLSTEIN: Well, look at the major federal vehicle for funding domestic violence work. It’s called the Violence Against Women Act. It’s not called the domestic violence act. And we see the same attitude propagated downward. Now, the real problem with this is that it fails to protect everybody. First of all, obviously it fails to protect men who do have violent partners. But the ironic thing about this is that it also fails to protect many women.
Well, how could that be? Well, if we really look at the data, what we find is that in couples where there is domestic violence, in about half of those couples, the violence is a two-way street. Sometimes he starts it, sometimes she starts it. Sometimes he hits her, sometimes she kicks him. And it can go either way. And what research - what several researchers have found is that when a women initiates the violence, she has a very high danger of being injured in retaliatory violence.
So, one of the things we can do to protect women is to teach women that just as it’s not okay for men to hit women, it’s also not okay for women to hit men, if for no other reason than self-protection.
Now, I know that whatever retaliatory violence might occur cannot be condoned or excused. But it’s a little bit the same principle that we’re taught when we’re young or when we’re teenagers, don’t go walking down a dangerous neighborhood in the middle of the night on a dangerous street. If you get attacked, no one can condone the attacker for doing it to you. But nevertheless, if you want to be practical and protect yourself, there are some things you don’t do.
And so we could help women by teaching women that it’s not okay for them to hit their male partners. And by teaching them that, which the domestic violence establishment refuses to do, we can help protect some of those very same women.
CONAN: How does it refuse to do that?
Dr. HOLSTEIN: Well, there is an ideology at work. I hate to say it, but it’s true. And there has been minimization and denial of women’s role in domestic violence. For instance, Obama just recently appointed Lynn Rosenthal to be the White House czar of domestic violence. And she comes out of this tradition, and this tradition has it that domestic violence only occurs for one reason and that is a patriarchal insistence of men on controlling women. The problem with that conception is that it eliminates - it rules out all sorts of things that are avenues or wedge points for controlling domestic violence.
First of all, it rules out that women ever start it themselves. And I just talked about that. It also rules out substance abuse as an important factor. And lots of instances of domestic violence are directly related to alcohol or substance abuse and that offers us an opportunity to help prevent it. Third, it also rules out psychiatric disorders. Some people who commit domestic violence are just plain crazy. And instead of having – instead of needing education on their patriarchal impulses of control, what they need is mental health assistance.
CONAN: We’re talking with Dr. Ned Holstein, founder of the organization, Fathers & Families, about an op-ed that he wrote in the Baltimore Sun called “The Violence We Ignore.” Our phone number is 800-989-8255; email us talk@npr.org. Let’s get to Steve(ph) on the line. Steve calling us from Syracuse.
STEVE (Caller): Hello?
CONAN: Hello, Steve. You’re on the air. Go ahead.
STEVE: I just want to say one of my first jobs out of grad school with a new MSW, was at an emergency room at Upstate University Hospital in Syracuse. And the powers that be were going to write a policy, and as you could probably tell with this topic, it was all about, when she comes in you remove him from her. And I’m looking around at all these high-ranking state employees, doctors and otherwise psychologists, and not one of them is picking up on the observation, this, you know, idiot, sort of, meaning myself, is going, now, wait a second. Now, this is like, over 90 percent of the situations but it’s not all of the situations.
And when we genderize violence, at this point, I’m a licensed clinical social worker in psychotherapy practice, and what I meet a violent and abusive personalities. Now statistically, yes, more likely to be possessed by male. But if what we look for are the genders, we’re going to miss the personality, and that’s the topic. And I think this artifact of this czar of domestic violence, how many years forward, I don’t know, that somehow we approach this through genderization, we missed an awful lot of people, real-life human beings and families in pain. And that’s just my observation.
CONAN: Okay, Steve. Would that fit into the ideology that you’re talking about, Dr. Holstein?
Dr. HOLSTEIN: Well, it certainly does, and this has been studied. As a physician, I often see forms in – for – in hospital records in which people are routinely asked, are you – do you feel safe at home or do you feel in danger at home? And the only ones who actually ever, who are ever asked this question are female patients. Male patients are never asked this question.
Now, a lot of people - what our caller just described, seems counterintuitive because men are bigger and stronger. But do recall that when you live together with a person, there are multiple opportunities for surprise or the use of weapons. Weapons are equalizers, and so is the element of surprise. You sneak up behind someone, you hit him over the bed- over the head with wine bottle, they’re going to be injured. And this does happen to men.
CONAN: Steve, thanks for the call.
STEVE: If there’s a line in the sand, it sort of begins quasi equal. But I agree with your speaker there, that that’s usually not the case, you know? I mean, it’s not going to be some face off. It’s going to be opportunity. We’re talking about violent personalities.
CONAN: Thanks very much, Steve. Bye-bye. Let’s go next to, this is Rebecca(ph). Rebecca calling from Columbus.
REBECCA (Caller): Hello, Neal. I have to say I’m somewhat troubled by this conversation, particularly because I believe that when we start to talk about instances of male victims and instances of domestic violence, we miss a really big opportunity with regards to teaching young men and women about the cycle of power and control that contributes to domestic violence situations. I am an advocate for victims of domestic violence here in Columbus.
And I have to say, as part of the series of process that we teach to high school and junior high school students, that begins with the spectrum starting at sexual harassment going on to dating violence and sexual violence, that we do draw the line the same when talking about this. And we think that – I – my opinion is that it’s not really being genuine to the situation to make it seem as though there is a 50-50 split, as though men are experiencing the sort of victimization as often as women are.
And the reason I don’t think that’s fair to talk about it, is because I think that we really miss an opportunity with regard to prevention. And I think what the previous caller was saying, with regard to violent personalities, you know, there’s a lot in our culture that sort of, you know, glorifies a male, you know, dominant role and a female submissive role. And it’s those sorts of, you know, social programming, I think, really contributes to the cycle of violence.
And, you know, I really think that the stereotypes that are associated with the damsel in distress and the, you know, aggressive male are, you know, are also contributing factors. So while I don’t think that we should be ceasing a dialogue about, you know, instances of male victimization and you know, situations regarding domestic violence, I think that, you know, it’s really important as we start to broaden the conversation that we are true to the fact that, you know, this is not a situation where there are equal numbers of female perpetrators (unintelligible).
CONAN: If it’s not 50-50, Rebecca, what do you think it is?
REBECCA: Well, I think that, really, what we need to talk about is a broadening of the - what we consider to be domestic violence. I think that, you know, your guest brings up a lot of really great examples. And definitely, this is the conversation that needs to be going on. But I don’t think that the reason the conversation needs to be going on is such that we can educate the public on how much more aggressive and violent women are in comparing them to men, but as part of a conversation that’s really about prevention and stopping that sort of behavior.
And I just think that, you know, the reality of this situation is that there is a lot of social programming that contributes to this concept of male aggression and female submissiveness. And, you know, and the survivors that I have dealt with of domestic violence, whether they were women - and I have definitely worked with some men and, more often than not, and perhaps some of the sad situation is with children of both genders - that it’s the sort of social programming of power and control that I think allows domestic violence to skip from one generation to the other.
And I really don’t think this is a matter of clearing men’s name or dirtying women’s name with regards to…
CONAN: I’m not sure that that’s what Dr. Holstein was talking about either, but let’s give him a chance to respond.
Dr. HOLSTEIN: Well, I - you’re quite right that we’re - at Fathers & Families were not interested in a blame game. We want to protect people. But I am troubled by the comments, because I think that they illustrate the exact kind of denial that I have made reference to in a domestic violence establishment.
The fact that women initiate domestic violence about equally with men has now been established in over 200 studies, 200 published studies. They include studies by Harvard researchers, most recently in 2007, published in the American Journal of Public Health.
It includes studies published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - one of the most highly esteemed public health research organizations in the country - by the Department of Justice, by Richard Gelles - who is chairman of a department at the University of Pennsylvania - by Murray Straus – who’s chairman of a department at the University of New Hampshire - by male researchers, by female researchers, many different parts of the country, over 200 studies.
And so I think the real issue before us, now, is how do we come to grips with this, and how do we ask the question, how do we better protect everybody - and we haven’t even talked about children yet - because so many children end up in this sole custody of mothers who may be violent personalities.
So - and we haven’t even talked about that. So we have a lot of work we need to do as a society…
CONAN: And…
Dr. HOLSTEIN: …get past blame, look at reality and protect people based on what the epidemiology shows.
CONAN: A Rebecca, I’m sure you could - we could discuss this with you all day. We want to give some other people a chance, though. We appreciate it.
REBECCA: Absolutely. Well, thank you very much for the discussion.
CONAN: Thanks very much for the phone call.
We’re talking on the Opinion Page today, with Dr. Ned Holstein. And you’re listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.
This email from Dean in Michigan. I’m male and happened to be in the University of Michigan emergency clinic this morning. They did ask me whether I was exposed to sexual and domestic violence, so some organizations are taking gender out of this issue.
And let’s see if we could go next to - and let’s go next to Jay, Jay with us from Winter Park, in Florida.
JAY (Caller): Yes. Hi. This subject is particularly sensitive to me because as a child, I was severely, viciously beaten by my mother. And, you know, basically just to comment on the Domestic Violence Against Womens Act, I’m not sure why they haven’t come up as unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, for one comment.
But when I lived in South Florida, I remember a policewoman blatantly stating that they never make arrests when the male is the victim of domestic violence. And there was another one again in the Miami area - I had called the police for a different subject where she says she was tied up because there was a fight where a woman was beating on a man at McDonald’s because she insulted him.
And if you look in the media, you know, I had asked the policewoman, did you make an arrest, but she got indignant at the question. But if you’ll look also in media, movies, sitcoms, when a woman gets insulted they are allowed to strike. They’re expected to strike as often perpetrated in movies and in the media. What do we say with all this?
CONAN: And Jay’s point, too, goes to what you were talking earlier about, Dr. Holstein, and that is that in situations involving law enforcement, again the presumption is often that the male cannot be the victim - it’s always the woman. And indeed, in Jay’s case that custody issues can go to - the great preponderances, to women when, in fact, as you just mentioned a moment ago, there can be cases where the woman is very violent and can be dangerous to the child?
Dr. HOLSTEIN: Denise Hines is a researcher at Clark University here in Massachusetts, and she actually studied and reported recently on what happens when men who are the on the receiving end of domestic violence call the police. And what she found that - was that even in that case where he’s the one being hit and he calls the police, he is the one who ends up being arrested in 26 percent of the cases. The - his partner is - who committed the abuse was arrested in - on just slightly more than half as often as he was arrested. And half of the time, the police didn’t arrest anybody and just said, well, there’s nothing we can do about this.
CONAN: Thank you very much for your time today.
Dr. HOLSTEIN: Thank you, Neal.
CONAN: Dr. Ned Holstein, the founder of Fathers & Families, co-author of “The Violence We Ignore,” an op-ed he wrote with Glenn Sacks, recently appeared in the Baltimore Sun. There’s a link to it at our Web site at npr.org, click on TALK OF THE NATION.
Bill to aid domestic violence victims passes assembly
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action/SIA
July 22, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
AB 688 protects victims of domestic violence from re-victimization by clarifying present state law and removing discrepancies that have allowed batterers to be released on their own recognizance without first appearing before a judge or commissioner.
California law presently requires a person charged with a misdemeanor for domestic violence to appear before a judge or commissioner in order to have the facts relevant to the arrest reviewed and determine whether the person is a threat to the alleged victim or to the public. However, present laws have flaws that have been pointed out by domestic violence advocacy groups and victims.
The present law is indicated as having discrepancies that potentially allow for the release of a batterer charged with abuse without ever appearing before a judge or commissioner. “Far too many adults and children continue to live in fear from their assailants,” stated Assemblymember Eng. “AB 688 will make sure that all persons charged are screened properly before they’re put back on the street. No one should have to live their life while constantly looking over their shoulder.”
Assembly Bill 688 authored by Assemblymember Mike Eng (D–Monterey Park) passed the Assembly floor unanimously and it is on the Senate floor now for consideration. It is not known whether or not any fiscal impact of the bill will prohibit it becoming law this year.
Open letter to Lynn Rosenthal White House Advisor for violence against women
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action /SIA
July 26, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
On June 26, 2009, Vice President Biden named Lynn Rosenthal as White House Advisor on Violence Against Women (VAW). Rosenthal has championed the movement against domestic and sexual violence for three decades, leading the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) from 2000 to 2006. Most recently, she served as executive director of the New Mexico Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Previously, she played a major advocacy role in reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act and assisted states and communities with its implementation. For the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence, she developed service models and created the state’s first comprehensive plan to help survivors find housing. She has also worked with corporate partners to promote economic empowerment for survivors and to bring millions of dollars in aid to communities in responding to domestic violence.
Ms. Lynn RosenthalWhite House Advisor on Violence Against Women
Dear Ms. Rosenthal,As you are aware, domestic violence is a matter of life and death for millions of women. There simply is no excuse for domestic violence resources to fail to assist victims in need—yet each month, it is estimated that thousands of abused women are turned away from state and federally funded domestic violence coalitions and shelters each month. These victims have no recourse when this happens, and no place to report their experiences or grievances.
The cold, hard reality is that these victims are falling through the cracks—ignored by the very organizations whose mission it is to assist them. Because of this failure, a growing number of victims are reaching out to Survivors In Action (SIA), a non-profit national advocacy group that provides individual assistance to victims of domestic abuse.
Ms. Rosenthal, given your extraordinary qualifications and clear commitment to preventing domestic violence, SIA is encouraged by your appointment as White House Advisor. Your appointment signals recognition at the highest levels of government that now is the time for real change and domestic violence resource reform. Without such reform, more victims will be subject to what advocates and victims now refer to as "The DV Run Around," and more will die.
We believe theDV Run Around occurs in large part because there is so little oversight of how funds are used by the thousands of state and federally funded domestic violence organizations and no assessment of whether these organizations are meeting victims’ needs. Accordingly, SIA is leading a two-pronged movement for national domestic violence resource reform:
First, we are advocating that the government audit the federal grants and other funds that domestic violence organizations receive to determine how these funds are being used and to ensure accountability.
Second, we are advocating the creation of a Federal Domestic Violence Oversight Committee to oversee state and federally funded domestic violence organizations and provide victims a place to document their experiences and file complaints.
As evidence of increasing public recognition of the urgent need for measures like these, we have obtained more than 1,000 signatures on our petition for Domestic Violence Resource Reform in just a matter of weeks.
As stated by Family Violence Prevention Fund President Esta Soler, “At a time when domestic, dating and sexual violence are pervasive problems that touch every community, and on average three women are murdered each day by their husbands or boyfriends, we need renewed attention to this issue and increased resources for victims and prevention measures.”
Ms. Rosenthal, I can’t express this any more clearly than Ms. Soler has in her statement above. The victims of domestic violence desperately need—and SIA respectfully requests—your support for the above measures. Please stand up for these reforms now.
Thank you so much for your attention and concern.
Sincerely,
Alexis A. MoorePresident Survivors In Action"No Victim Left Behind"
What is Survivors In Action?
Survivors In Action (SIA) is a non-profit national advocacy group that supports victims and the families of victims of any crime, including domestic violence, identity theft, elder abuse, cyber-stalking, stalking, child abuse, rape, and sexual assault. Other national organizations typically help victims at specific points in their victimization cycle—such as when they first report the crime or in writing parole opposition letters—leaving “gaps” in needed services. SIA is the only organization that fills the gaps, providing support through all stages of the journey from victim to survivor, with no time limitations, cut-off dates, or conditions. Our mission is to ensure that no victim anywhere in the nation is left behind.
US Legislators Examine Violence Against Women Act
Government Press Releases (USA)
July 29, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
One out of every three people in the United States has been a victim of domestic violence, according to Department of Justice Statistics. In 1994, the United States passed the Violence Against Women Act to protect women against domestic abuse. Since then, more women are reporting these crimes. But now lawmakers are planning to re-examine the law in several areas, particularly as it deals with millions of immigrants in the United States. But not everyone is happy about that.
For eight years Blanca lived a concealed, dark life... with a violent husband who punched her in the stomach and repeatedly raped her. She eventually found peace here at House of Ruth, a shelter offering safety and security to battered women. But before that, she never called police.
Blanca was illegal. Living in America without a work permit or residency. She feared if she notified police, they would deport her back to Central America and she would never again see her young son and daughter.
"I'm not afraid to go back to my country," she says, "I'm not afraid. It's your children, separated from you. It's the hard part."
Blanca is not alone. Nearly half of all Latinos say their partner's violence increased after they emigrated to the United States. If they are illegal they fear deportation, so less than 15 percent report the crime.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are looking closely at the immigrant provisions in a domestic violence act.
"It doesn't make any difference if it's a family member, boyfriend or stranger. It's a crime. It's a crime," Senator Patrick Leahy says, "It's a crime."
Congress first passed the violence against women act, known as VaWa in 1994. It's up for reauthorization in the next two years. Advocates want more security for immigrants.
"So much more is needed. We must strengthen VAWA so that it works for all victims of sexual or domestic violence - whether they live in rural or urban areas, whether they speak English or another language," Karen Tronsgard-Scott says. "Every victim deserves a chance to live a peace-filled life."
But lawmakers are up against protectionists who don't want taxpayer funds benefiting residents who don't have permission to live in the U.S. Others complain about the confidentiality granted through the law. Once an immigrant claims abuse, their quest for legal status through the VaWa act is secret. The accused is not sought out for his side of the story.
Ron Grignol is a critic who says VaWa makes it easy for women to allege abuse, simply to become permanent residents. "Right away you're given legal status. You don't have to go through that immigration interview, you don't have to go through the administrative law judge," he explains. "Your spouse or ex-spouse is not allowed to provide any evidence that he thinks you committed fraud."
Immigration attorney Melissa Frisk disagrees. She says the law makes it more difficult to prove abuse. "It's going to take longer and the evidentiary burdens are even higher. So you need even more evidence than you would for regular immigration application. It's not easy," Frisk said.
For Blanca, VaWa has changed her life. Through the provisions, she obtained a work permit. She got a divorce and moved out of the house. Now she sees her children on a regular basis. "I feel free! I can read a book and relax. I have a dream that I can see my children graduate," she said.
It's a dream that can finally roll on to become reality.
Domestic Violence 101: The personal vs. the political Part 4
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
July 30, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Unfortunately, it is often the case that a man calling police for aid is himself arrested, as it is now very hard for a man to press charges of domestic violence against a woman. The half-hearted attempt by most organizations to use gender-neutral language in promotion gives a false message, and some men have found themselves in handcuffs, while their abusive wives continue to assault them, right under the view of police. These men have made the mistake of expecting equal treatment in a situation that allows for nothing of the kind.
What then, about the idea of refraining from blaming the victim when the victim is a man? The rules don’t apply here, because only women can be designated as victims. No matter how gender neutral the language may be on the front page of the organization’s website, or their paper handouts, the principle under which these organizations function is still man = perpetrator, woman = victim. That is why I was less than optimistic when VAWA 2005 included some language that allowed for help for male victims.
As Jan Brown of DAHMW has seen, a handful of renegade agencies, who actually intend to aid victims of domestic violence rather than using their programs for other, political, purposes, reacted to the change by asking her for assistance in treating male victims. Yet the major organizations have been mostly silent on this change, possibly because they believe it can be safely ignored. Their past experience has shown them they may continue their sexist practices, as long as the language they use for public consumption appears to be “gender-neutral.”
This is just one example: In April of 2005, I was alerted to an article at the ASU student newspaper entitled, Controlling love subtitled: Women throughout the world and at ASU cope with physically and emotionally abusive relationships
As usual in most publications, this piece focused on the female point of view, but did give a nod to the fact that men are also victims. This is all right as far as it goes, but then their “expert” consulted on the issue made the following erroneous statement:
"The truth is, there is just as much support for male victims as there is for female victims of abuse. It's a myth that most domestic violence programs exist only for women. If a center receives any local, state or government funding, it must work with victims of both sexes." Christina Walsh is the spokesperson for the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence.
I recognized that there is little or no support for male victims in Arizona or anywhere else. “Support” for male victims in AZ consists of a handful of beds at a shelter in Mesa, a Phoenix suburb, and one or two isolated discussion groups, which cannot provide practical assistance. Even though we alerted the newspaper of the factual error, and provided indisputable evidence to verify the truth, no correction was ever made, nor did I ever get so much as a response to my e-mail.
It may be interesting to note the way the statement from Ms. Walsh was framed. “It's a myth that most domestic violence programs exist only for women. If a center receives any local, state or government funding, it must work with victims of both sexes."
She says “must work with.” She does not say “provide equal services to.” Certainly, shelters all over the country “work with” male victims. They hand them a voucher for the No-tell Motel out by the freeway, and send them on their way. This cannot, however, be construed as equal treatment by any stretch of the imagination.
Note that she refers to a “myth.” Shelter advocates frequently use this word to counter anything that disagrees with the standard party line. We believe this is done because it takes the discussion out of the realm of hard facts and logic, where the standard party line tends to collapse. It also provides a subtle implication that perhaps anyone considering the myth may well believe in fairytales.
My two decades of experience with social/human services programs in general tells me they tend to provide a service that deals directly with the issue they’re intended to address. Food banks provide food, literacy programs teach people to read, adult day care programs provide respite for caregivers. Reasons why their clients need those services are secondarily addressed, if at all, since they recognize the necessity of dealing with the immediate issue first, in the way they can. When they talk about their programs to the public, the language is generally direct and clear about what they do. Domestic violence programs are quite another matter.
By taking the issue of partner abuse, re-framing it as “violence against women”, and placing it into the political arena, it is no longer possible to address it on a human level. Reducing the issue to the simplistic, and quite inaccurate terms in use today is too little; assigning the same value to all cases is too much. By insisting only women are victims limits the overview to half the problem. By treating all victims as if they were in immediate danger for their lives is a knee-jerk overreaction that simply leads to confusion and unnecessary anguish.
Meanwhile, treating all men as if they are physically battering their wives or girlfriends, consciously choosing to do that, while believing they have some “right” endowed on them by a “patriarchy,” is far beyond rationality. Those in charge of devising solutions have not bothered to find out what makes an abusive relationship tick; in favor of choosing to believe they somehow know all the answers already. Feminists have always been very good at projecting their own beliefs and emotions onto others.
The approach is all wrong, from start to finish. The actual people involved here seem to be left out of the equation, in all the talk of power and control, oppression of women, and patriarchy. One might think this whole issue is just a smokescreen for something else.
If you look at a number of websites devoted to the issue, what you will find is much the same information, from site to site. They are all about fundraising, expanding their networks, public policies, community. It's as if they fully expect that with enough organizations and public policies the issue will magically go away.
Let's take a look at what a few of these agencies have to say about themselves.
The Mission of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) is to organize for collective power by advancing transformative work, thinking and leadership of communities and individuals working to end the violence in our lives.
NCADV believes violence against women and children results from the use of force or threat to achieve and maintain control over others in intimate relationships, and from societal abuse of power and domination in the forms of sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, anti-Semitism, able-bodyism, ageism and other oppressions. NCADV recognizes that the abuses of power in society foster battering by perpetuating conditions, which condone violence against women and children. Therefore, it is the mission of NCADV to work for major societal changes necessary to eliminate both personal and societal violence against all women and children.
The National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence (NCDSV) designs, provides, and customizes training and consultation, influences policy, promotes collaboration and enhances diversity with the goal of ending domestic and sexual violence.
The National Domestic Violence Hotline (NDVH) was established in 1996 as a component of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) passed by Congress, NDVH is a nonprofit organization that provides crisis intervention, information and referral to victims of domestic violence, perpetrators, friends and families.The Hotline answers a variety of calls and is a resource for domestic violence advocates government officials, law enforcement agencies and the general public.
There is quite a lot of material on all these sites devoted to convincing women they are in dire, immediate, danger, and the only solution is to let one or more of these agencies help them. You might find some insight into the way potential victims are treated by reading the press kit for NDVH.
What is missing from all these major national orgs is any mention of research and development, or seeking new solutions. There is never any whisper of addressing the issue within the context of the relationship. It seems fairly clear that what they want is for society (and the victims in it) to change to suit them, rather than being responsive to the needs of society.
Here's a statement from a group called the Battered/Formerly Battered Women's Caucus:
In order for the domestic violence movement to facilitate effective and positive social change in our society, it is imperative that Battered and Formerly Battered Women have a clear presence and a loud voice to direct and guide this movement. We have a commitment to provide compassionate, respectful support to the women we serve. As a movement, it is in our best interest to consider survivor's wealth of knowledge and resources, as well as represent those who have been silenced.
As Battered and Formerly Battered Women we fight against the stereotypes dominant culture forces on us. Then, we turn to the Battered Women's Movement that purports to validate and support us to find we must continue to struggle and educate. We refuse to have our experiences, reactions and our history pathologies. We will not be defined as having a psychological malady that caused, created, or attracted abuse to us and to our lives. We will not be defined as having a psychological malady because we have been battered.
The Battered and Formerly Battered Women's Caucus of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence call upon all Battered Woman's Projects, Organizations and Workers to stop using clinical language, and mental health/social work models in their work with Battered Women and Children. These approaches were embraced to gain respect and support for the battered women?s movement, but they have failed to do so. While this approach may have gained respect and financial advantage for some battered women?s workers, this language has done so at a cost of revictimizing, disrespecting and demeaning Battered Women. It has also inadvertently aided batterers using institutional systems to persecute Battered Women, in areas such as child custody proceedings.
The Battered and Formerly Battered Women's Caucus of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence call upon all Battered Woman's Projects, Organizations and Workers to recognize that it is your day-to-day advocacy and interaction with Battered Women and children that create social change. Focusing on mental health/social work models that promote the idea that Battered Women need treatment distracts from our most immediate work and deepest belief: the needs she brings to us for safety, support and justice and her inherent autonomy to direct her life and define her identity.
The Battered and Formerly Battered Women's Caucus of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence call upon researchers and academics within the movement to make their primary focus the cultural and systemic basis of abuse to women and children. We challenge researchers and academics to step up as partners in promoting social change to end battering and sexual assault. We also challenge them to reevaluate current practice that focuses on the outcomes of such research that concentrates on creating and perpetuating the concept of domestic violence as individual psychopathology and/or as caused by alcohol/drug abuse. We recognize past research has increased funding and validity for some; however, we believe the interpretation and implementation of such findings has aided in the suffering and death of the very individuals the research was intended to serve--Battered Women and Children.
I don't think it can be any more clear this group is resistant to change.
Here’s some commentary from Erin Pizzey:
1969 saw the first meetings of the feminist collectives in England. At the same time I was opening my refuge the feminist movement was looking for funding and a just cause. The feminists redefined the Marxist goalposts and declared that it was MEN (the patriarchs), not Capitalism, that held power advantages over women and minority groups (the proletariat), and that all men were now the enemy. Family life was a dangerous place for women and children because men used physical and emotional violence to maintain their power advantage, and women only ever reacted violently in self-defence.
Harriet Harman, Anne Coote and Patricia Hewitt expressed their belief, in a Social Policy Paper called The Family Way: 'It cannot therefore be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion'. These sentiments encouraged the radical feminist movement to claim that ‘all men and boys were potential rapists and batterers’.
She also says:
…A gigantic hoax has been perpetrated and unsubstantiated statistics have been produced to feed a damaging and disastrous political ideology which was now a billion-dollar world-wide industry that discriminated against many innocent men and fathers...
I don't think I can put it any more plainly than that.
GAA Calls on Secretary Clinton to Speak Out Against Gender-Based Violence During Her Africa Trip
PR Newswire (USA)
July 31, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Global AIDS Alliance executive director Dr. Paul Zeitz issued the following statement today on the eve of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's departure for a seven-nation tour of Africa:
"We applaud Secretary Clinton's decision to visit Africa next week and her decision to focus attention during her visit on preventing conflict and violence, including gender-based violence, on the African continent. Violence against women (VAW) and violence against children (VAC) are issues in each of the countries she is visiting; for example:
-- Tens of thousands of women and girls have suffered systematic rape and torture in Democratic Republic of the Congo since conflict there began in 1998.
-- Liberia has a culture of sexual violence that is a carry-over from years of conflict there.
-- South Africa has one of the highest reported rates of rape in the world, coupled with one of the highest HIV rates in the world.
As a U.S. Senator, Secretary Clinton was a co-sponsor of the International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA) in the last session of Congress, and she is thus well aware that gender-based violence occurs even in countries where there is no current conflict or war. Her trip is an opportunity to highlight the need for the U.S. government to coordinate all of its programs to address VAW and VAC, as well as to emphasize the responsibilities of African governments to address the scourge of violence," said Zeitz.
Worldwide, one in three women will survive physical, sexual, or emotional abuse in her lifetime. One in five will survive rape or attempted rape, and around 50% of female sexual assault survivors are 15 years or younger at the time of their attack. In addition, 10% of boys worldwide are sexually abused before they turn 18. In some countries, up to 50% of school children report having been physically or sexually abused while at school.
Violence against women and violence against children is a public health and human rights crisis of epidemic proportions. VAW/VAC also fuels the HIV/AIDS pandemic, both by hindering prevention efforts, including access to education, and by creating barriers to counseling, testing, and treatment services.
"We urge Secretary Clinton to speak out on these issues in all of her meetings with African leaders, and to impress on them the importance of immediately taking steps to protect the health, well-being, and safety of women and children in their countries," said Zeitz.
SOURCE: Global AIDS Alliance
NEW LEGISLATION SEEKS TO IMPROVE ASSISTANCE TO DOMESTIC, SEXUAL VIOLENCE VICTIMS
US Fed News (USA)
July 31, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Today, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20) and Congressman Ted Poe (TX-2) will announce bipartisan legislation which will make urgently needed corrections and improvements to the Violence Against Women Act. The Improving Assistance to Domestic and Sexual Violence Victims Act of 2009 (H.R. 3401) will refocus VAWA to help address the full range of critical needs that today's domestic violence victims face.
"Since VAWA first passed in 1994, the number of women killed by their intimate partners has decreased by 24 percent" said Rep. Wasserman Schultz. "With these important changes we will ensure that this law continues to be a vital resource for prosecutors, social workers, and all of those committed to ending the scourge of domestic violence."
"I am pleased to work with my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in introducing this legislation," said Rep. Poe (TX-2). "I believe that it shows again that victims' issues are people issues, not partisan issues. Approximately 2.3 million people each year in the United States are raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend. Women are 90 - 95 percent more likely to suffer domestic violence than men. As founder and co-chair of the Victims' Rights Caucus, it is imperative that we not only make these changes to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), but that we do so in a timely fashion. We must ensure that women who are victims of violence have access to the vital services they need."
Rep. Wasserman Schultz and Rep. Poe drafted this legislation to amend the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 to improve assistance to domestic and sexual violence victims. Among other important changes, this bill, which was drafted with the aid of victim advocates in the field, will:
* Enhance the privacy protections for victims by ensuring that private information, including home addresses are not published on the Internet.
* Ensure that more young victims of stalking and dating violence can find youth-oriented services;
* Increase the number of sexual assault nurse examiners, who provide expert testimony, proper evidence collection, and accurate documentation of injuries. These sexual assault nurse examiners are often critical to the successful prosecution of offenders;
* give sexual assault victims greater peace of mind, by allowing offenders to be tested for HIV and sexually transmitted infection at earlier stages in criminal proceedings;
* clarify that nothing in VAWA prohibits grantees from reporting child abuse or neglect, or elder abuse or neglect, in states that don't mandate reporting; and
* strengthen protections in existing law for battered immigrant women, whose batterers often escalate the cycle of violence with impunity due to the victim's fear of deportation by authorities if she reports abuse.
"With these vital adjustments to the Violence Against Women Act, Congress will ensure that the law is as effective and strong as it was intended to be and that VAWA will continue to meet the needs of those it seeks to protect as we move forward," said Rep. Wasserman Schultz. "I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important bipartisan initiative.
Keep up to date on HR3401 - VAWA
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
August 1, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
H.R. 3401, To amend the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to improve assistance to domestic and sexual violence victims and provide for technical corrections
Information on the bill so far is sketchy -- it's not even available to read yet -- but it might be a good idea to bookmark the bill's page at Washington Watch and keep informed!
Here's what the site at Library of Congress says: The text of H.R.3401 has not yet been received from GPO Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from the Government Printing Office a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.
Senate Begins Debate On SOTOMAYOR Nomination - LEAHY Statement
Government Press Releases (USA)
August 5, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
On The Nomination Of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, To Be An Associate Justice Of The U.S. Supreme Court:
When the Judiciary Committee began the confirmation hearing on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, I recounted an insight from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., which is often quoted by President Obama: "Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
Each generation of Americans has sought that arc toward justice. Indeed, that national purpose is inherent in our Constitution. In the Constitution's preamble, the Founders set forth to "establish Justice" as one of the principle reasons that "We the People of the United States" joined together to "ordain and establish" the Constitution. This is intertwined in the American journey with another purpose for the Constitution that President Obama often speaks about, the unfinished goal of forming "a more perfect Union." Our Union is not yet perfected, but we are making progress.
That journey began with improvements upon the foundation of our Constitution through the Bill of Rights, and then continued with the Civil War amendments, the 19th Amendment's expansion of the right to vote to women, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the 26th Amendment's extension of the vote to young people. These actions have marked progress along the path of inclusion, and have recognized the great diversity that is the strength of our great Nation.
Judge Sotomayor's journey to this nomination is a truly an American story. She was raised by a working mother in the Bronx, and rose to win top honors as part of one of the first classes of women to graduate from Princeton. She excelled at Yale Law School, was one of the few women in the Manhattan District Attorney's office in the mid-70's, became a Federal trial judge and then the first Latina judge on our Federal appeals court when she was confirmed to the Second Circuit over a decade ago. She is now poised to become the first Latina Justice, and just the third woman, to serve on the United States Supreme Court. She has broken barriers along the way, and has become a role model to many. Her life journey is a reminder to all of the continuing vitality of the American dream.
Judge Sotomayor's selection for the Supreme Court also represents another step toward the establishment of justice. I have spoken over the last several years about urging Presidents from both political parties to nominate someone from outside the "judicial monastery" to the Supreme Court. I believe that experience, perspective, an understanding of how the world works and how people live, and the effect that decisions will have on the lives of people are very important qualifications.
One need look no further than the Lilly Ledbetter and Diana Levine cases to understand the impact that each Supreme Court appointment has on the lives and freedoms of countless Americans. In the Ledbetter case, five justices on the Supreme Court struck a severe blow to the rights of working families across our country. Congress acted to protect women and others against discrimination in the workplace more than 40 years ago, yet we still struggle to ensure that all Americans--women and men--receive equal pay for equal work. It took a new Congress and a new President to strike down the immunity the Supreme Court had given to employers who discriminate against their workers, and successfully hide their wrongdoing.
For all the talk about "judicial modesty" and "judicial restraint" from the nominees of a Republican President at their confirmation hearings, we have seen a Supreme Court these last four years that has been anything but modest and restrained.
I understand decrying judicial activism when judges have simply substituted their judgment for those of elected officials. That is what we have seen all too often these last years from the conservative members of the Supreme Court.
When evaluating Judge Sotomayor's nomination, I believe Senators should consider what kind of Justice she will be. Will she be in the mold of these conservative activists who have gutted legislation designed to protect Americans from discrimination in their jobs and in voting, laws meant to protect the access of Americans to health care and education, and laws meant to protect the privacy of all Americans from an overreaching Government" I think not and hope not. That is not the kind of judge she has been for the last 17 years. Instead, she has applied the law to the facts in the cases she has considered, while cognizant of the impact of her decisions on those before her court.
Those who struggle to pin the label of judicial activist on Judge Sotomayor are met by her solid record of judging based on the law. She is a restrained, experienced and thoughtful judge who has shown no biases in her rulings. The charge by Senate Republican leaders that they fear she will show bias is refuted by her record. In fact, her record as a judge is one of rendering decisions impartially and neutrally. No one has pointed to decisions that evidence bias. No one has shown any pattern of her inserting her own personal preferences into her judicial decisions. No one can, because it does not exist. That is not who she is, nor the type of judge she has been.
As her record demonstrates and her testimony before the Judiciary Committee reinforced, she is a restrained, fair and impartial judge who applies the law to the facts to decide cases. Ironically, the few decisions for which she has been criticized are cases in which she did not reach out to change the law or defy judicial precedent, in other words, cases in which she refused to "make law" from the bench.
In her 17 years on the bench there is not one example, let alone a pattern, of her ruling based on bias or prejudice or sympathy. She has been true to her oath and faithfully and impartially performed her duties under the Constitution. As a prosecutor and as a judge, she has administered justice without favoring one group of persons over any other. She testified directly to this point, saying: "I have now served as an appellate judge for over a decade, deciding a wide range of constitutional, statutory and other legal questions. Throughout my 17 years on the bench, I have witnessed the human consequences of my decisions. Those decisions have not been made to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interests of impartial justice."
About 12 years ago, in a case called City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law that Congress had passed to protect religious freedom. Since then, an activist, conservative group of Justices has issued a number of rulings that have further restricted the power of Congress under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, and limited other important federal statutes, such as the Violence Against Women Act. They have done this by using a test created out of whole cloth, without any roots in the text and history of our Constitution. Scholars across the political spectrum have criticized the Supreme Court's rulings in this line of cases, including Judge Michael McConnell and Judge John Noonan, Jr., both Republican appointees to the Federal bench.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their lives fighting a Civil War that ended the enslavement of millions of Americans. After the war, we transformed our founding charter, the Constitution, into one that embraced equal rights and human dignity through the Reconstruction amendments, by not only abolishing slavery, but also by guaranteeing the equal protection of the law for all Americans and prohibiting the abridgement of the right to vote on the basis of race.
But these Reconstruction amendments to our Constitution are not self-implementing. Both the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution contain sections giving Congress the power to enforce the Amendments. Congress acts to secure American's voting rights when it passes statutes like the Voting Rights Act pursuant to its authority to implement the 14th and 15th Amendment's guarantees of equality. Congress acts to ensure the basis for our democratic system of government when we provide for implementation of this principle. In contrast to the resistance that met the initial enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, three years ago, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and the House of Representatives came together to reauthorize key expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act. This overwhelmingly bipartisan effort sought to preserve the rights of all Americans to have equal access to the democratic process.
Earlier this year, I attended the oral argument in the case challenging the constitutionality of the reenacted Voting Rights Act. It appeared from the questions posed by the conservative Justices that they were ready to apply the troubling line of rulings in which they have second guessed Congress in order to strike down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, one of our country's most important civil rights laws. Lacking a fifth vote for such a seismic shift, the constitutional ruling was avoided. I remain concerned that the Supreme Court nonetheless remains poised to issue rulings in other cases that second-guess and overturn the considered decision made by Congress how best to protect the rights and well being of the American people.
I believe Judge Sotomayor will be a Justice who will continue to do what she has done as a judge for the last 17 years. I believe she will show appropriate deference to Congress when it passes laws to protect the freedoms of Americans.
I also believe she will have an understanding of the real world impact of the Supreme Court's decisions, which will be a welcome addition. When she was designated by the President, Judge Sotomayor said: "The wealth of experiences, personal and professional, have helped me appreciate the variety of perspectives that present themselves in every case that I hear. It has helped me to understand, respect, and respond to the concerns and arguments of all litigants who appear before me, as well as to the views of my colleagues on the bench. I strive never to forget the real-world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses, and government."
It took a Supreme Court that understood the real world to see that the seemingly fair-sounding doctrine of "separate but equal" was in reality a straightjacket of inequality and offensive to the Constitution. All Americans have come to respect the Supreme Court's unanimous rejection of racial discrimination and inequality in Brown v. Board of Education. That was a case about the real world impact of a legal doctrine.
But just two years ago, in the Seattle school desegregation case, we saw a narrowly divided Supreme Court undercut the heart of the landmark Brown v. Board decision. The Seattle school district valued racial diversity, and was voluntarily trying to maintain diversity in its schools. By a 5-4 vote of conservative activists on the Supreme Court, this program was prohibited. That decision broke with more than a half century of equal protection jurisprudence and set back the long struggle for equality.
Justice Stevens wrote in dissent that the Chief Justice's opinion twisted Brown v. Board in a "cruelly ironic" way. Most Americans recognize that there is a crucial difference between a community that does its best to ensure that its schools include children of all races and one that prevents children of some races from attending certain schools. Experience in the real world tells us that. Justice Breyer's dissent criticized the Chief Justice's opinion as applying an "overly theoretical approach to case law, an approach that emphasizes rigid distinctions... in a way that serves to mask the radical nature of today's decision. Law is not an exercise in mathematical logic."
Chief Justice Warren, a Justice who came to the Supreme Court with real world experience as a state Attorney General and Governor, recognized the power of a unanimous decision in Brown v. Board. The Roberts Court, in its narrow desegregation decision two years ago, ignored the real world experience of millions of Americans, and showed that it would depart from even the most hallowed precedents of the Supreme Court.
I am hopeful and confident that when she serves as a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, Sonia Sotomayor, a woman from the South Bronx who has overcome so much, will be mindful of the real-world experiences of Americans.
Those critics who devalue her judicial record and choose to misconstrue a few lines from speeches, ignore the aspiration behind those speeches. In fact, Judge Sotomayor begins the part of the speech so quoted by critics with the words "I would hope." She would "hope" that she and other Latina judges would be "wise" in their decision-making and that their experiences would help inform them and help provide that wisdom. I hope so, too. Just as I hope that Justices Thomas' early life leads him to, as he testified in his confirmation hearing, "stand in the shoes of other people." And I hope that Justice Alito's immigrant heritage, as he too discussed in his confirmation hearing, helps him understand the plight of the powerless in our society.
Judge Sotomayor also said in her speeches that she embraced the goal that: "[J]udges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law." Her critics also miss that Judge Sotomayor was pointing out a path to greater fairness and fidelity to law by acknowledging that despite the aspiration to impartiality she shares with other judges, judges are human. Her critics ignore her modesty in not claiming to be perfect. By acknowledging that judges come to the bench with experiences and personal viewpoints, they can be on guard against those views influencing judicial outcomes. By striving for a more diverse bench, drawn from judges with a wider set of backgrounds and experiences, we can better ensure that decisions of the courts will be freer of limited viewpoints or narrow biases.
All Supreme Court nominees have talked about the value they will bring to the bench from their backgrounds and experiences. That diversity of experience is a strength, not a weakness, in achieving an impartial judiciary. A more diverse bench with a better understanding of the real world impact of decisions can help avoid the pitfalls of the Supreme Court's decisions these last years.
Let me point to just one example. Judge Sotomayor sat on a three-judge panel that heard a case involving strip searches of adolescent girls in a juvenile detention center. The parents of two female children challenged Connecticut's blanket strip search policy for all those admitted to juvenile detention centers as a violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches. Two of the male judges on that Second Circuit panel upheld the strip search of the young girl. In dissent, Judge Sotomayor cited controlling circuit precedent, described what is involved in strip searches of these girls who had never been charged with a crime and without any basis for individual suspicion, and observed that courts "should be especially wary of strip searches of children, since youth is a time and condition of life when a person may be most susceptible to influence and to psychological damage." She also emphasized that since many of these girls "have been victims of abuse or neglect," and that they "may be more vulnerable mentally and emotionally than other youths their age."
The Supreme Court recently decided a similar case, the Redding case, and found that school officials violated the Fourth Amendment rights of a young girl by conducting an intrusive strip search of her underclothes while looking for the equivalent of a pain reliever. During oral arguments in that case, when one of the male Justices compared the search to changing for gym class, and several other Justices answered with laughter. Justice Ginsburg, the lone female Justice on the Supreme Court, described the search as "humiliating" to young girls. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that case by a vote of 8-1. Justice Souter - the Justice which Judge Sotomayor is nominated to replace - wrote the opinion for the Court. Of course, that position mirrored that of Judge Sotomayor. I suspect that it was Justice Ginsburg's understanding of the intrusiveness of the strip search of the young girl that ultimately prevailed.
Among the very first purposes of the Constitution is "to establish Justice." It is the purpose that has animated the improvements we have made over generations to our Constitution. It is the purpose engraved in the words etched in Vermont marble over the entrance to the Supreme Court: "Equal Justice Under Law."
I hope and believe that Judge Sotomayor understands the critical importance of both fairness and justice. A decade ago she gave another speech in which she spoke about the meaning of justice. She said: "Almost every person in our society is moved by that one word. It is a word embodied with a spirit that rings in the hearts of people. It is an elegant and beautiful word that moves people to believe that the law is something special."
I believe that Judge Sotomayor will live up to those words when she is confirmed to serve on the United States Supreme Court.
Abducted child's father faces prison for peaceful protest
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
August 9, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Donald Tenn, the Sacramento father who traveled to Washington DC recently for a rally to confront President Obama on his "fathers need to step up" comments, will be in a Columbus, Ohio courtroom Monday morning on charges related to his 4 day protest on a 175' construction crane last year.
Tenn was a stay-at-home daddy until Shannon Phillips took their daughter to Illinois on what was described as a vacation three years ago. After her arrival Phillips announced that she had no intention of returning to California, or of allowing Madison to return. When Tenn reminded her that California law prevents parental move-aways Phillips filed her first of many false charges of domestic violence against Tenn.
At one point he had hope. One judge refused a restraining order and scolded Phillips for her antics. But after Tenn had one visit with Madison in Illinois Phillips renewed her campaign of false allegations.
He writes on his website dedicatedtomadison.com:
I had finally received a California court order for visitation with my daughter. I was certain it would be enforced by the police in Illinois. But Moultrie County States Attorney Marvin Hanson ignored the California Court order. He told police to no longer assist Mr. Tenn in his efforts to visit his daughter. He even went out of his way to contact the California state court. He was looking for a restraining order so he could arrest me!
There have been no consequences for any of Phillips' illegal activities. She has not only been allowed to keep custody of Madison; she's also hiding Madison from Tenn, against court orders.
Phillips, like many women is allowed to break the law and perpetrate fraud upon the court and tax-payers. Studies show that one million allegations of domestic violence filed each year are unnecessary or false. The Violence Against Women Act has continued to fund Phillips' crimes, travel and legal fees through battered women's shelters, including WEAVE in California and DOVE in Illinois.
Tenn has had family court judges in both Illinois and California refuse to address his custody and visitation concerns, each telling him to go back to the other state to file in that family court. And when they did address him, he says, his attempt to protect his daughter and her best interest was not their concern.
By phone recently he said:
I've been yelled at by judges three times for saying that I was there for my daughter. If you get a traffic ticket you're given several minutes to plead your case. Like most dads I thought if I just tell the truth everything will get sorted out. But go to family court and you aren't allowed to speak.
Sacramento County family court Judge John Winn got so upset when I told him I was there for my daughter the baliff walked over to the judge to calm him down.
When I told Judge Thomas Cecil that I believed the restraining order to be mutual, he yelled at the top of his lungs he was so angry.
Tenn, who is now President of Fathers 4 Justice in the United States, spent the 4 days on a 175' construction crane in a thunderstorm. He and Paul Fisher, who had come down earlier, hoped to draw media attention to their plight, and that of millions of fathers across the country.
He went on:
I don't know how they're getting away with this. The judges are breaking the law. They don't care. I'm a good and loving daddy. I don't deserve this. Madison doesn't deserve this.
Asked if there is a war on fathers Tenn said:
I hear the same story from fathers in every state. I've traveled the country and have seen it myself. I challenge anyone to sit in any family courtroom, in any state, in any county for one hour on any day of the week. They will see that the war on fathers is real.
When Tenn, who has years of tower climbing experience and Fisher unfurled their banner, they didn't know what reaction their presence would cause when the sun came up and the construction crew came on site. They were happy to see they had the support of the workers. They were even told that the crane itself wouldn't be needed for a couple of days.
With news reporters present, not ten minutes after Tenn's descent, workers had the crane up and running. He's being charged thousands of dollars for a safety inspection that from the looks of it was never done, along with federal vandalism charges that could land him in prison for 18 months. Tenn is hoping for a sympathetic jury.
UPDATE: The trial has been postponed until October.
For more info: Northern California dad travels to DC to confront President Obama Family Rights 101: Why is there a fathers rights movement? DedicatedtoMadison.com Fathers 4 Justice
Feminism: the need to conquer domestic abuse, equal pay issues, and world perceptions
San Antonio Examiner (TX)
Author/Byline: Michele Gwynn
August 14, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
AP Photo-Judge Sonia Sotomayor's swearing in to the Supreme Court
In the 1840’s, British Parliament began passing a series of acts known as the Married Woman’s Property Acts which entitled women to the right to own their own property and keep their own wages separate from their husbands, and protected from their husband’s creditors. In August of 1920, the United States passed the 19th amendment to the constitution giving women the right to vote. By the 1960’s, this movement for women’s rights became known as feminism, or women’s liberation. Women lobbied for equal pay, equal rights under the law, and even the right to either have or not have children as they saw fit.
It has taken feminists literally hundreds of years just to get to the modern day where women are holding higher offices within the country. Currently, the third female Secretary of State holds office in the administration of the first African-American president (Barack Obama). History has shown African Americans have succeeded further in equal rights under the law at a faster rate than women in the 18th and 19th centuries as African-American slaves were allowed to own property, and earn and keep their own money before women. Even male slaves were granted the right to vote in elections before women (1870, fifty years prior to the 19th amendment). In the skewed view that white males in power had on those they considered insignificant, women ranked at the bottom of the priority poll. To this day, we have only had two women appointed to the Supreme Court, the third, (Judge Sonia Sotomayor), sworn in only recently (Aug., 2009).
In this ongoing, uphill climb, three issues remain as obstacles to true equality between the sexes. They are domestic abuse, equal pay for equal work, and the world perception of exactly what equal rights for women means.
Statistics show (in 2000) that approximately 1.3 million women are assaulted annually by an intimate partner in the United States, and that is only the number actually reported to law enforcement. Double that number and you might hit the truer representation of women being assaulted annually.
Domestic violence crime prosecution got help from the federal government in 1994 with the passing of the Violence Against Women Act that gave law enforcement the tool necessary to prosecute these crimes. Previously, the federal government had no jurisdiction over domestic abuse cases. They also amended the Gun Control law to include situations where guns were used in domestic violence cases. Sadly, the general penalties for a domestic violence conviction make it difficult to prevent the abuser from abusing, possibly fatally, again since sentencing often results in the convicted being on either supervised or unsupervised probation for approximately 24 months.
The probation includes mandatory counseling, the cost of which comes out of the abuser’s pocket, an order of protection (restraining order) to be in place for the duration of probation that includes any extended time if an appeal is filed, notice of the person’s conviction posted on public and police databases, and any other provisions the judge deems fit such as no harassment, no molestation, and no contact either directly or indirectly with the victim of abuse. While this is all good, the abuser is still walking the streets, and can choose to ignore his probation and go after the victim again. Complete enforcement is not possible if the abuser is allowed freedom to roam.
Another problem with the prevention of domestic abuse is that many women either do not report it, or they keep going back to the abuser. This can lead to eventual fatality, and it also gives the wrong message to young children of that relationship that abuse is normal. Often, children of abusers grow up to either abuse, or be abused. And women caught in the cycle of abuse feel powerless in helping themselves. They are often unaware that there is so much help out there, and that now, domestic violence is a federal crime.
A start to preventing this behavior as being acceptable should be including domestic abuse, and even child abuse, issues as part of children’s education in schools. The curriculum in most schools now includes sex education. If one can be taught, why not the other? Children need to know the signs of domestic abuse, learn that it is not “normal”, and be made aware as to where to go for help.
The issue of “equal pay for equal work” laws have been in effect since 1964, but were not as enforced as they should have been until the Lily Ledbetter Act of 2009, signed in January of 2009 by President Obama. Previously, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, The Age Discrimination Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1997 were the only laws in place to protect employees from wage discrimination of any kind. However, these laws are difficult to prove and harder to enforce. The Ledbetter Act came into play, superseding the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Inc. The problem, as stated, was filing period. Ledbetter was told she did not file within a timely manner (within 180 days after the discriminatory practice began) and therefore was not entitled to retroactive compensation for unfair pay she received for the same work done by men in the same position. Her employer concealed the unfair pay practice from her, and so she did not become aware of it until too late under the Civil Rights Act. This went on for years, and the Ledbetter Act of 2009 reversed the original Supreme Court decision (made by following the Civil Right Act), making the employer liable for paying out the correct compensation from the time the discriminatory practice began. This Act is a great step in closing the gap on pay issues between men and women performing the same work, despite gender or title differences.
Finally, world perception of feminist causes determines their outcome. What this means is that they are judged on how they are presented, as are all things. Over-reaction to issues will only garner attention to the reaction, and not the issue at hand. While over-reacting may be called for on certain issues involving endangerment to women or controversies such as equal pay, it can only be a distraction to lesser issues. Being a bra-burning militant is not always the way to go. Diplomacy and strategy are often better tactics. In other words, when someone makes a mountain out of a mole hill, or even a mountain out of nothing at all, as in a recent case with an article by this author where one reader deliberately mistook humor for factual presentation and lambasted this author as “archaic”, and “harmful to women”, she unknowingly made a point for the humor cited in the article about PMS (post menstrual syndrome). In other words, she sounded as if she were experiencing her own PMS that day and took it out on the author. As the self-proclaimed expert she purported to be on the subject, according to her own website, by treating a harmless, humorous personal blog as medical science, she wound up making herself look like one of the caricatures in the blog. This did not further her cause well. She could simply have laughed it off, but offered some of her “expertise” as a counter for the humor. How she presented herself hurt how she could have been perceived. This is a good example of a lesser or even a non-issue.
Feminism has come a long way, but has further, yet, to go. What feminists are striving for is equal rights under the law. In no way are they saying they are equal to men in all respects such as physical strength (but sometimes are) any more than men are completely equal to women in such cases as pain tolerance (let’s see a man push a 10 pound baby out of his penis!). And, yes, some men can actually tolerate a little pain without crying! The fight continues onward with a steady push. The keys are patience, diplomacy, education, and perseverance; all of which are areas where women excel. And since it almost happened this last election, I foresee the first female president of the United States well within my time here on earth.
Obama's czars are an interesting cast of characters
Cincinnati Examiner (OH)
Author/Byline: Daniel Beckstedt
Section: Cincinnati Conservative Examiner
August 16, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
In his first seven months, Barack Obama has appointed 32 "czars" to take the lead on various issues, including the automobile industry, healthcare, finance and other items hot on the President's agenda. These "leaders" are appointed directly by the President and have been used by previous administrations. However, the number of czars Obama has currently appointed, along with the "rumoured other czars, such as a cyber czar and a health insurance czar.
So, what is a "czar" and who are these people being appointed by the President? Good question, I'm glad you asked. Courtesy of Glenn Beck www.glennbeck.com , we have a comprehensive list that shows who these "czars" are. And it is a scary cast of characters indeed.
Keep in mind as you read down this list that these are not "official" positions. These men and women report to no one except for Barack Obama. They do not answer to Congress, The Supreme Court, or most importantly, to us!
Please read this and pass it on to family, friends and neighbors. Stay informed. It is your constitutional duty.
The following is from www.glennbeck.com
NOTE: positions that also existed under previous administrations are indicated with an *.
1. Afghanistan Czar - Richard Holbrooke
Title: Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Appointed: January 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: State
• Will work with CENTCOM head Gen. David Petraeus to integrate U.S. civilian and military efforts in the region.
• 45 years of experience have made him a fixture of the Democrats' foreign policy establishment.
• Was U.S. ambassador to U.N., 1999-2001
• Brokered the 1995 Dayton Peace Accords in Bosnia
• Also served as Assistant secretary of state, East Asia and the Pacific (1976 to 1980); worked in foreign service (1962 to 1976)
• From 1972 through 1976, was the editor of Foreign Policy magazine.
2. AIDS Czar * - Jeffrey Crowley
Title: Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy
Salary: $102,000
Reports to: President Obama (as part of the Executive Office of the President’s Domestic Policy Council) Appointed: February 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: Health and Human Services
• Coordinates HIV/AIDS policy domestically and internationally.
• Senior Research Scholar at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute and a Senior Scholar at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University Law Center.
• Was Deputy Executive Director for Programs at the National Association of People with AIDS
• Has Master of Public Health from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health
3. Auto Recovery Czar - Ed Montgomery
Title: Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Larry Summers, the president's top economic adviser, and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis Appointed: March 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: Labor
• Will work to leverage government resources to support the workers, communities and regions that rely on the American auto industry.
• Was Deputy Secretary and Chief Economist at the Labor Department (1997 to 1998)
• Is Dean of the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the University of Maryland (2003 to present) • Has PhD in economics from Harvard
• In 2008, made $1,200 in political donations, all of which went to Obama’s presidential campaign.
• Wife is the granddaughter of a General Motors worker from Portland, Mich.
• Drives a 2000 Lincoln
4. Border Czar * - Alan Bersin
Title: Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano Appointed: April 2009 Agencies that might have handled similar issues: Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
• Will coordinate all of the department's border security and law-enforcement efforts.
• Essentially had the same job under President Clinton; served as Attorney General Janet Reno's special representative on border issues, a job that he held while retaining the position of U.S. attorney for San Diego.
• This time, boss will be Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who will expect him to handle illegal immigration and drug violence issues along the Mexican-American border
• Previous experience: Chairman of the San Diego Regional Airport Authority (2006 to 2009); Secretary of Education for California (2005 to 2006); Superintendent of San Diego Public Schools (1998 to 2005); U.S. Attorney for San Diego (1993 to 1998)
• Graduate of Harvard and Yale Law School
• Talking about border security shortly before he was named Clinton border czar in 1995, said he wanted to focus on suspected smugglers of both drugs and people and was not interested in prosecuting “economic migrants.”
• Often tied to the 1994 border policy called “Operation Gatekeeper.” The policy shifted the U.S. focus from the arresting of immigrants who actually crossed the border to an increased border presence designed to stop border crossing in the first place. When Bersin left the position in 1998, border arrests were on pace for an 18-year low of just more than 200,000. Latino groups complained that Operation Gatekeeper was immoral, saying the program monitored the border near San Diego but simply forced illegal immigrants to other, more dangerous areas.
• Has given more than $50,000 to political campaigns since 1999, almost all of it to Democrats.
5. California Water Czar - David J. Hayes
Title: Deputy Interior Secretary
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Interior Secretary Ken Salazar Appointed: June 2009 Confirmed by Senate (as Deputy Interior Security): May 20, 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: Interior
• Charged with coordinating federal agencies to ease California's water shortage
• Graduate of Stanford Law School; clerked for U.S. District Court for the D.C., has been a partner at two big D.C. law firms
• Was deputy interior secretary under Bruce Babbitt during Clinton administration
• From 1993 to 1995, was chairman of the board at the Environmental Law Institute, a non-profit research center.
• As a lobbyist, represented the Southern California Metropolitan Water District in 2001
• In August 2008, wrote a policy report while working at the Progressive Policy Institute accusing the Bush administration of leaving a “damaging legacy” in their natural resource management policies
• Donated $2,300 to Clinton during 2008 campaign; after she withdrew, donated $2,300 to Obama
6. Car Czar - Ron Bloom
NOTE: on July 13, 2009, Bloom took over as head of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, replacing Steven Rattner
Title: Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council head Larry Summers Appointed: July 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: Treasury
• A leader of the White House task force overseeing auto company bailouts; worked on restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler LLC.
• Was special assistant to president of the United Steelworkers union from 1996-Feb 2009
• Has negotiated restructuring deals for more than 50 companies, getting major concessions from unions and companies.
• Was raised in New York in a pro-union family, which included a schoolteacher mother and unionized relatives.
• After working for the Service Employees International Union, got an MBA from Harvard University because he thought unions lacked business smarts, he said in a 1996 interview in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
• From 1985 to 1990, he worked as an investment banker with Lazard Freres & Co., which specializes in mergers, acquisitions and corporate restructuring, before co-founding the investment-banking firm Keilin and Bloom.
7. Central Region Czar - Dennis Ross
Title: Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the Central Region (encompasses the Middle East, the Gulf, Afghanistan, Pakistan and South Asia)
Salary: unknown
Reports to: National Security Adviser Gen. James L. Jones Appointed: June 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: State
• Spent 12 years in the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations trying to create a permanent agreement between the governments of Israel and the Palestinian territories
• In 1981, was named to President Ronald Reagan’s national security staff as the director of Near East and South Asian Affairs.
• Was director of the State Department’s Policy Planning office during President George H. W. Bush’s term.
• 1993: appointed to the position of Middle East coordinator, making him the top negotiator for peace between Israel and Palestinian territories
• After he left government in 2000, headed up Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a hawkish think tank with a pro-Israeli bent
8. Climate Czar - Todd Stern
Title: Special Envoy for Climate Change
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Appointed: January 2009 Agency or department that might have handled similar issues: Environmental Protection Agency; State
• Responsible for developing international approaches to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
• Served in the Clinton White House from 1993 to 1999; Was Head of the Initiative on Global Climate Change (1997 to 1999) and Adviser to the Secretary of the Treasury (1999 to 2001)
• As a top aide to President Clinton, helped negotiate the Kyoto and Buenos Aires climate pacts, both of which fell apart partially because of a lack of U.S. support during Bush administration.
• After Bush was elected to office, went to the Wilmer Hale law firm, where he is a partner in the regulatory and government affairs division.
• Was most recently a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he focused on climate change and environmental issues.
• Has written extensively on climate change, and has called on the American government and the international community to take a series of steps to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
• Supports a national cap-and-trade system that would limit carbon emissions and reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil
• Has law degree from Harvard
9. Domestic Violence Czar - Lynn Rosenthal
Title: White House adviser on Violence Against Women
Salary: unknown
Reports to: President Obama and Vice President Biden Appointed: June 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: Health and Human Services
• Will advise the President and Vice President on domestic violence and sexual assault issues.
• 2000-2006: served as the Executive Director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence
• Was an advocate for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act in 2000 and 2005 and has assisted states and local communities with implementation of this federal legislation
• Was director of the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence
10. Drug Czar * - Gil Kerlikowske
Title: Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Salary: unknown
Reports to: President Obama Appointed: March 2009 Confirmed by Senate: May 7, 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: Justice
• Directs drug-control policy in the U.S.; is expected to shift drug policy to intervention, treatment and a reduction of problem drug use.
• Was police chief for the city of Seattle from 2000-2009
• Was Deputy Director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (1998 to 2000); Police Chief for the city of Buffalo (1994 to 1998); Police chief of Fort Pierce, Fla. (N/A to 1994)
• A strong gun-control advocate, urged both the Washington legislature and the U.S. Congress to pass an assault-weapons ban and has worked to close the loophole that doesn't require background checks at gun shows
• 2003: admitted that busting people for personal marijuana possession was not a top priority of the Seattle police department.
• As Seattle police chief, assigned an officer full-time to the drug court, which commuted sentences of drug users who complete medical treatment in lieu of going to jail.
11. Economic Czar * - Paul Volcker
Title: Chairman of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Salary: Volcker reportedly isn't paid for his advice.
Reports to: President Obama Appointed: January 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: Treasury
• Charged with offering independent, nonpartisan information, analysis, and advice to the President as he formulates and implements his plans for economic recovery.
• Some reports say he's been marginalized by Larry Summers.
• Former Federal Reserve chairman (1979-1987)
• Was Undersecretary for Monetary Affairs, Department of the Treasury (1969 to 1974); Deputy Undersecretary for Monetary Affairs, Department of the Treasury (1963 to 1965)
• Gave Obama campaign $2,300 in 2008.
12. Energy and Environment Czar - Carol Browner
Title: Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change
Salary: $172,200
Reports to: President Obama Appointed: January 2009 Agency that might have handled similar issues: EPA
• Coordinates energy and climate policy, emphasizing regulation and conservation.
• Was Environmental Protection Agency administrator in the Clinton administration (1993-2000)
• Was Florida Secretary of the Environment (1991 to 1993)
• Founded and continues to serve as a principal of The Albright Group LLC, a global strategy firm led by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Also a principal of Albright Capital Management, an investment advisory firm that concentrates on emerging markets.
• Worked on the Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which argues that the global community must work collectively to address environmental policies
• Described Bush administration as the "worst environmental administration ever"
• While orchestrating private discussions between the White House and auto industry officials on vehicle fuel efficiency standards, kept the talks as quiet as possible. Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air Resources Board, said, "We put nothing in writing, ever."
• 2003: A federal judge held the Environmental Protection Agency in contempt for destroying computer files during the Clinton administration that had been sought by a conservative legal foundation. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth also ordered the EPA to pay the Landmark Legal Foundation's legal fees and costs because the agency disobeyed his order to preserve the electronic records of Browner, the former EPA chief.
13. Faith-Based Czar * - Joshua DuBois
Title: Director of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
Salary: $98,000
Reports to: President Obama Appointed: February 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: Health and Human Services
• Acts as a liaison between faith and secular community groups and the White House, often partnering with them to tackle social issues. Helps these groups apply for federal grants available to them.
• Is 26 years old
• Has master’s in public affairs from Princeton University; served as associate pastor
• Worked for Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) as an intern and then as a fellow for Rep. Charles B. Rangel (DN. Y.).
• Hired as a legislative correspondent in Obama’s Senate office in May 2005
• In 2008, at the age of 25, was appointed director of religious affairs for the Obama campaign.
14. Government Performance Czar - Jeffrey Zients
Title: Chief Performance Officer
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orzag Appointed: April 2009 Confirmed by the Senate (as deputy director for management for the OMB): June 19, 2009 Agency that might have handled similar issues: OMB
• Charged with cutting costs and finding best practices throughout government.
• Has never worked in government before
• Was a chief executive and former management consultant
• Was founder of Portfolio Logic (2004 to present); Partner of the Washington Baseball Club (2004 to 2006); CEO of the Advisory Board (1998 to 2004)
• Has donated just over $90,000 to political campaigns since 1999, almost all of which went to Democratic candidates
15. Great Lakes Czar - Cameron Davis
Title: Special advisor to the U.S. EPA overseeing its Great Lakes restoration plan
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson Appointed: June 2009 Agency that might have handled similar issues: Environmental Protection Agency
• Oversees the administration's initiative to restore the Great Lakes' environment.
• President of the Chicago-based environmentalist group Alliance for the Great Lakes
• Was a litigating attorney and served as an adjunct clinical assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School.
• Served with the United Nations Environment Program in Nairobi, Kenya, where he worked on the Montreal Protocol to protect the Earth’s ozone layer, and U.S. EPA’s Office of Regional Counsel in Chicago.
16. Green Jobs Czar - Van Jones
Title: Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Head of Council on Environmental Quality Nancy Sutley Appointed: March 2009 Agency or department that might have handled similar issues: Environmental Protection Agency; Labor
• Will focus on environmentally-friendly employment within the administration and boost support for the idea nationwide
• Rose from near obscurity in the Oakland, Calif., grassroots organizing scene to the leader of a national movement to spur the green economy.
• Founded Green For All, an organization focused on creating green jobs in impoverished areas
• Also co-founder of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Color of Change, which includes Bay Area PoliceWatch, a group devoted to "protect[ing] the community from police misconduct"
• Published New York Times best-seller The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems, in October 2008
• Started career as a prison-reform advocate in Oakland, Calif., lobbying for reform of the juvenile justice system and youth-violence prevention programs
• Has law degree from Yale
• 2007: worked on the Green Jobs Act with then-Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.), who co-sponsored the bill in the House
• 1993: was arrested at the Los Angeles riots that followed the acquittal of cops in the Rodney King beating. "I was arrested simply for being a police observer," says Jones, who had just graduated from Yale Law School and was working with the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco.
• 1999: was arrested in the 1999 Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization
• Excerpt from a Nov. 2005 interview in the East Bay Express: Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist." In 1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia. They protested police brutality and got arrested for crashing through police barricades. In 1996, Jones decided to launch his own operation, which he named the Ella Baker Center after an unsung hero of the civil-rights movement.
17. Guantanamo Closure Czar - Daniel Fried
Title: Special envoy to oversee the closure of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton Appointed: March 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: Justice; State
• Works to get help of foreign governments in moving toward closure of Guantanamo Bay, in fulfillment of Obama's promise to close the prison within a year of taking office.
• Was Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs, State Department (2005 to 2009); Director for European and Eurasian Affairs, State Department (2001 to 2005); U.S. Ambassador to Poland (1997 to 2001)
18. Health Czar * - Nancy-Ann DeParle
Title: Counselor to the President and Director of the White House Office of Health Reform Salary: $158,500
Reports to: President Obama Appointed: March 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: Health and Human Services (HHS)
• Coordinates the development of the Administration's healthcare policy agenda.
• Experience: Managing Director, CCMP Capital (since 2001); Adjunct professor (focusing on healthcare policy), Wharton School of Business (since 2001); Commissioner, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (since 2001); Fellow, Harvard Institute of Politics (2000 to 2001); Director, Healthcare Financing Administration (1997 to 2000)
• Has law degree from Harvard
• Served as the OMB’s representative on health-care reform during Bill Clinton’s first term
• As head of the HHS Health Care Financing Administration under Clinton, ran the largest health insurance provider in America, overseeing $600 billion in payments annually to 74 million recipients of Medicare and Medicaid
• 2001: left government to take a year-long fellowship at Harvard’s Institute of Politics, where she was part of Harvard’s Health Care Policy Forum and led a weekly study group on reforming Medicare.
• During Bush administration, sat on the boards of many health companies, from medical treatment producers to hospital systems
• In September 2008, donated $2,300 each to Clinton and Barack Obama.
19. Information Czar - Vivek Kundra
Title: Federal Chief Information Officer
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag Appointed: March 2009 Agencies that might have handled similar issues: other federal agency CIOs
• Basically in charge of overseeing other federal agency CIOs and for setting technology policy across the government. • Head of a federal technology budget that amounts to $71 billion annually
• Operation is housed in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and will likely have authority to question how money in departmental technology budgets is used
• Formerly head of the District of Columbia's technology operations
• Shortly after he joined the OMB, federal authorities raided his old District government office. They arrested two technology office managers and a subcontractor, charging them with a bribery scheme that allegedly defrauded the city out of at least $500,000. Kundra was not a suspect in the case, the U.S. Attorney’s office said.
• Has a masters from Maryland in information technology.
• Experience: Washington, D.C. Chief Technology Officer (2007 to 2009); State of Virginia's Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Trade (2006 to 2007); CEO of computer security firm Creostar
20. Intelligence Czar * - Dennis Blair
Title: Director of National Intelligence
Salary: $197,700
Reports to: President Obama Appointed: January 2009 Confirmed by Senate: January 28, 2009 Agency that might have handled similar issues: CIA
• Nation’s top intelligence official.
• Retired four-star admiral.
• Graduate of the United States Naval Academy, 1968; sixth-generation naval officer • Lacks professional roots in the world of intelligence
• Held a number of prestigious Washington posts, including the Pentagon’s top liaison to the CIA and director of the Joint Staff.
• Ran the non-profit Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), which focuses primarily on issues related to national security, and does a lot of work for the Defense Department. Left IDA under a cloud of controversy in mid-2006.
21. Mideast Peace Czar - George Mitchell
Title: Special Envoy for Middle East Peace
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton Appointed: January 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: State
• Works to maintain the shaky peace between Israel and Hamas after recent hostilities
• Senate majority leader from 1989 to 1994
• Was special envoy to Northern Ireland during the Clinton administration and lead investigator into steroid use in Major League Baseball.
• 2000: led a fact-finding committee to study violence in the Middle East; 2001's Mitchell Report formed the basis for the road map for Middle East peace
22. Pay Czar - Kenneth R. Feinberg
Title: Special Master on executive pay
Salary: reportedly receiving no compensation for his work.
Reports to: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Appointed: June 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: Treasury
• Named to examine compensation practices at companies that have been bailed out more than once by the federal government
• Oversaw the payouts to the families of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks
• Was the chief administrator to the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund, which commemorates the students who died in the April 2007 shooting rampage at Virginia Tech
• Founder and managing partner of Feinberg Rozen LLP (1992 to present), law firm specializing in mediation
• Was Chief of staff for Sen. Edward Kennedy (1978 to 1980)
• While working with the Feinberg Group, donated over $150,000, nearly all of which has gone to Democratic candidates and political action committees. In 2007, donated $2,300 to 2008 presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani (R).
23. Regulatory Czar - Cass R. Sunstein *
Title: Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Office of Management and Budget head Peter Orszag Appointed: January 2009 Nomination was sent to Senate on April 20, 2009 - no action yet taken Agency that might have handled similar issues: OMB
• Will be responsible for reviewing draft regulations and assessing their costs and benefits
• Is a Harvard Law School professor; prior to that, was a professor at the Univ. of Chicago Law School (1981-2008) • Academic specialties: constitutional law, administrative law, and regulatory policy
• Obama: "Cass is not only a valued advisor, he is a dear friend"
• Known for advancing a field called "law and behavioral economics" that seeks to shape law and policy around the way research shows people actually behave; though embraced by conservatives, critics say it fails to account for the sometimes less-than-rational aspects of human behavior.
• In his 2002 book, Republic.com, discussed the drawbacks of limitless choices on the Internet that allow people to seek out only like-minded people and opinions that merely fortify their own views; he talked about the idea of the government requiring sites to link to opposing views. He later came to realize it was a "bad idea."
• In his 2004 book, Animal Rights, suggested that animals ought to be able to bring suit, with private citizens acting as their representatives, to ensure that animals are not treated in a way that violates current law.
• In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S.
• The American Conservative Union started a website, Stop Sunstein, in an effort to keep him out of the White House.
24. Science Czar - John Holdren
Title: Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology
Salary: unknown
Reports to: President Obama Appointed: December 2008 Confirmed by Senate: March 19, 2009 Agency or department that might have handled similar issues: Energy
• Top adviser to Obama on science and technology, issues that are increasingly relevant to other issues such as homeland security, energy and environmentalism
• Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director, Program in Science, Technology, and Public Policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government (1996-2009); Harvard University Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy (1996-2009); University of California, Berkeley Professor of Energy and Resources Emeritus (1996 to present)
• Studied aerospace engineering and plasma physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology — where he earned his BS and MS — and Stanford University, where he received his doctorate in 1970
• Is an outspoken advocate of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and believes the United States should sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
• In a 2008 New York Times op-ed, Holdren called climate change skeptics “dangerous” members of a “denier fringe.”
• In 1971, co-authored a paper in Global Ecology suggesting "some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century."
• Some conservative media outlets have called attention to a book Holdren co-authored in 1977 titled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment. The book reportedly includes this statement: "population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution." Holdren's office says he "does not now and never has been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive measures to limit fertility."
25. Stimulus Accountability Czar - Earl Devaney
Title: Chair of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Vice President Biden Appointed: February 2009 Agency that might have handled similar issues: OMB
• Leads oversight board that monitors money spent by the stimulus package
• Experience: Inspector General at the Interior Department (1999 to present); Director of criminal enforcement at the Environmental Protection Agency (1991 to 1999); Special Agent at the Secret Service (1970 to 1991)
• During his tenure at Interior, uncovered the shady dealings of disgraced ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, an investigation that eventually led to Abramoff's imprisonment and the resignation of Interior's no. 2, J. Steven Griles, for lying under oath about his own role in the scandal.
• On July 8, 2009, the U.S. General Services Administration issued a press release announcing an $18 million contract for a new recovery.gov web site, which quoted Devaney as saying, “We are pleased that another major milestone has been achieved."
26. Sudan Czar - J. Scott Gration
Title: Special Envoy to Sudan
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Appointed: March 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: State
• Will coordinate U.S. role in the aftermath of the genocide in Darfur
• Experience: Supreme Allied Command, NATO (2004 to 2005); Air Force assistant deputy undersecretary for international affairs (2003 to 2004) • Commanded all air operations during the Iraq war in 2003
• 2006: left Air Force position to join Obama’s staff after traveling to Africa with the then-Senator from Illinois, even though he was a Republican
• Has won a Bronze Star, a Purple Heart, a Defense Superior Service Medal and 16 other awards
• Is a fluent Swahili speaker who grew up in the Congo
• Has called on the Obama administration to incentivize participation by the Sudanese government in peace talks by lifting sanctions, a position that is controversial. Also worked to position himself as the principal negotiator between the Sudanese government and its adversaries in Darfur, and is planning an international conference for September 2009
• Has M.A. in security studies from Georgetown
27. TARP Czar - Herb Allison
Title: Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Appointed: June 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: Treasury
• Leads the government's $700 billion financial rescue program in the office of financial stability
• Veteran Wall Street banker and interim head of the mortgage-finance company Fannie Mae
• Worked at Merrill Lynch for 28 years, reaching position of president and COO
• Was CEO of Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association College Retirement Equities Fund (2002 to 2008); CEO of the Alliance for Lifelong Learning (2000 to 2002)
• Has undergraduate degree from Yale and MBA from Stanford • 2000: was John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign finance chairman
• In 2008, donated $2,300 to Obama's presidential campaign
28. Technology Czar - Aneesh Chopra
Title: Chief Technology Officer
Salary: unknown
Reports to: President Obama Appointed: April 2009 Confirmed by Senate: May 21, 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: Commerce
• Will lead in the effort to eliminate wasteful government programs
• Will probably work to increase broadband access nationwide and computerize medical records
• Was Virginia’s secretary of technology (2005-2009) • Has degree in public health from Johns Hopkins, Master's from Harvard in public policy
• Worked at Morgan Stanley as investment banker; also worked at Advisory Board, a health-care research and consultancy firm
• Has donated more than $24,000 since 1997 to various campaigns. With the exception of a $1,000 donation to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) in 2004, all of Chopra’s contributions have gone to Democrats. From 2007 to 2008, Chopra donated $2,750 to Obama’s presidential campaign.
29. Terrorism Czar - John Brennan
Title: Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
Salary: $172,200
Reports to: National Security Adviser James L. Jones Appointed: January 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: Homeland Security
• Under Obama's plan the homeland security adviser’s office would be eliminated, and the National Security Council would take over those duties. Brennan would be responsible for guarding against natural disasters and terrorism.
• Has called for increased integration between the Departments of Commerce, State and Defense
• Graduated from Fordham University in 1977 after a year of intensive Arabic and Middle Eastern studies in Cairo. Earned his J.D. from the University of Texas at Austin before joining the CIA as an intelligence director in 1980.
• Is a CIA veteran and fluent Arabic speaker
• Was CIA deputy executive director (2001 to 2003) and National Counter-Terrorism Center, Chair (2004 to 2005)
• Worked at Analysis Corp, (2005 to 2008);
• Staunch supporter of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Program; defended the use of extraordinary rendition, saying it is “an absolutely vital tool.”
30. Urban Affairs Czar - Adolfo Carrion Jr.
Title: White House Director of Urban Affairs
Salary: $158,500
Reports to: President Obama Appointed: February 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: Housing and Urban Development
• Job entails coordinating transportation and housing initiatives, as well as serving as a conduit for federal aid to economically hard-hit cities.
• Has undergraduate degree in world religions from Kings College; became an associate pastor at a Bronx church; earned his master’s degree in urban planning from Hunter College
• Was Bronx Borough President (2001-2009); President of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials (since 2007); City Council member (1998 to 2000)
• Many reporters say he has higher ambitions and will probably run for New York City mayor in the next ten years.
• Was an active campaigner for Obama, travelling across the country to speak on his behalf. He focused particularly on states with large Hispanic populations.
• The NY Daily News reported numerous developers made tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations to Carrión around the same time he was considering approving their projects in the Bronx.
31. Weapons Czar - Ashton Carter
Title: Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Defense Secretary Robert Gates Appointed: April 2009 Confirmed by Senate: April 23, 2009 Department that might have handled similar issues: Defense
• Will coordinate the Pentagon's acquisitions, technology and logistics for weapons.
• Will oversee a weapons-buying system that Obama has placed at the top of his list of federal programs he wants to fix and will be asked to quickly weigh in on difficult decisions concerning at least 10 major defense programs, while also instantly dissecting the procurement system’s ailments so he can advise the administration on its Pentagon acquisition reform agenda
• Is a physicist and Harvard academic whose only previous Pentagon stint was in a mid-level policy post from 1993 until 1996 under the Clinton administration
• Graduated from Yale summa cum laude; studied at Oxford University as a Rhodes scholar and earned a doctorate in theoretical physics.
• Chair of Harvard’s International Relations, Science & Security Area International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (1993 to 1996); Director of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s Kennedy School (early 1990s)
• Has donated primarily to Democratic politicians since 2000. He donated $6,900 to then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2007 and 2008. He gave the same amount to then Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) during that same span.
32. WMD Policy Czar - Gary Samore
Title: White House Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security and Arms Control Salary: unknown
Reports to: National Security Advisor Gen. James L. Jones Appointed: January 2009 Department or agency that might have handled similar issues: NSC; Defense; State
• Will coordinate issues related to weapons of mass destruction across the government. His portfolio includes proliferation, nuclear and conventional arms control, threat reduction, and terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction.
• Position sits within the National Security Council.
• Is a veteran arms control negotiator.
• B.A. in sociology from the State University of New York at Stony Brook and his PhD in government from Harvard University in 1984.
• After brief stints with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the RAND Corporation, joined the State Department during the Reagan administration in 1987. Held several positions there, including director of the Office of Regional Non-proliferation Affairs; special assistant to the Ambassador-at-Large for Non-proliferation and Nuclear Energy Policy; and deputy to Ambassador-at-Large for Korean Affairs Robert Gallucci. Helped to negotiate the 1994 U.S.-North Korea Framework Treaty
• Joined the Clinton administration’s National Security Council in 1995 as an adviser on nonproliferation. Coordinated U.S. policy on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
• Was Director, Council on Foreign Relations (2006 to 2009); Vice President for Global Security and Sustainability, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (2005); Researcher, International Institute of Strategic Studies (2001 to 2005)
Stop the Orwellian half-truths!
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
Author/Byline: Trudy Schuett
August 19, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
RADAR ALERT:
Just about everyone knows men can be victims of domestic violence:
* According to a 2006 Harris poll, 88% of Americans have heard about a male victim of domestic violence in the past year.
* In his introductory remarks to the Senate hearing on the Violence Against Women Act in June, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy noted, "We still have millions of women and men and children and families who are traumatized by abuse."
* Nearly 250 scholarly studies confirm that fact.
But a dwindling number of hold-outs still believe intimate partner violence against men isn’t even worth mentioning. Unfortunately, several of those persons currently work in the White House:
* Valerie Jarrett, director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, told NPR , "Domestic violence is still a major issue, not just for women but also for girls."
* During a recent teleconference, Lynn Rosenthal, White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, repeatedly used the phrase, "violence against women." Not once did she use the term, "violence against men," even though the call took place just two weeks after the murder of former NFL quarterback Steve McNair by his girlfriend.
* Despite repeated attempts to educate Vice President Joseph Biden about the truth of domestic violence, he continues to be a true believer in the myth that women never abuse.
But there is hope. Because President Obama has repeatedly promised that one of the hallmarks of his Administration will be respect for science over ideology. In his inaugural speech on January 20, Obama declared, "We will restore science to its rightful place."Mr. Obama, we agree with you wholeheartedly!
So take 2 minutes out of your day and send this simple message to President Barack Obama: "Mr. President, Please instruct your staff to respect the truth about domestic violence. Have them acknowledge that men are victims, as well. Let us not forget the needless tragedy of former NFL quarterback Steve McNair."
R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence.
We all have a duty to help prevent family violence
Idaho Statesman, The (Boise, ID)
Author/Byline: sen. Mike Crapo - Idaho's senior U.S. senator.
August 23, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Several weeks ago, I wrote to my constituents about the rise in the incidence of family violence during times of economic recession. A few days later, 8-year-old Robert Manwill went missing in Boise.
Since then, Idaho has learned more about this heartbreaking story, and now his mother and her boyfriend have been charged with Robert's death. This case is an example of how awful family violence can be and should give us motivation to do everything we can to prevent family violence in all of its forms.
The alleged events of this case are similar to many others that I have learned about in my visits with abuse victims in shelters around Idaho. The emotional and physical effects of family violence became very real to me in 1998 during a visit to a safe house for children in Twin Falls County. During this deeply moving visit, I met children who had been victims of child abuse. Their stories and the lasting effects of abuse on their lives greatly affected me and moved me to make abuse and family violence prevention a constant priority in my public service.
Through regular visits to Idaho shelters and briefings by local and state domestic violence abuse prevention advocates, I remain involved and active with this issue on the federal level. My efforts have included improving and strengthening the Violence Against Women Act and the Victims of Crime Act, promoting public-private partnerships to support those who are victims in their own homes, working to increase public awareness of the issue and working to help victims to know there is help available.
Family violence is something we all must work to prevent. The first and most immediate thing we can do to prevent family violence is to be aware and watch for it. Community vigilance, personal situational awareness and common sense are essential to prevention. Pay attention to what is happening around you, and don't hesitate to help someone who you suspect might be in trouble. Vigilance demands that we speak up, point out, notice our surroundings and listen to our instinct. It is always better to err on the side of caution.
Donating money and volunteering time to your local shelter is another good way to help. Many shelters in Idaho are underfunded and have difficulty maintaining sufficient staff and resources. Due to long-term uncertainty and stiff competition for federal Violence Against Women Act and Victims of Crime Act support, family violence intervention and prevention advocacy organizations cannot survive without local support through donations and volunteering. These organizations make a critical difference in the character and quality of our communities. They provide needed services to victims and education to communities, helping promote healing that leads to self-sufficiency and self-respect.
Cases of family violence, such as the recent case in Boise, occur every day, so we must work on prevention and raising awareness every day. I encourage you to make an effort to learn about the groups working to prevent family violence in your area and get involved with the shelters working to heal its negative effects.
Mike Crapo is Idaho's senior U.S. senator.
Domestic violence victims turned advocates available for interviews in October
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore
August 25, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
October is Domestic Violence Awareness month and Survivors in Action, a nonprofit, national advocacy group, have domestic violence victims turned advocates available for interviews. Survivors in Action is aggressively working with the newly appointed White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, Lynn Rosenthal, to pave a new way for domestic violence victim and resource reform. President of Survivors in Action, Alexis A. Moore can discuss the following topics:
• The staggering statistics on domestic violence in America and how increasing awareness and resource reform will aid in the eradication of family and spouse violence.• The personal tragedies and relentless pain that victims of domestic violence endure during and after their attacks. • The new initiatives that Survivors in Action are partnering with the White House to reform legislation and resources to help victims of domestic violence.• The role organizations like Survivors in Action play when they are working with Congress, the White House, or the victims of domestic violence.• How to help a friend or contact who is being abused or where to turn when you are in a dangerous relationship.
To schedule an interview with Alexis or other victims of domestic violence please email Alexis@survivorsinaction.com or call 916.941.7292.
What is Survivors In Action?
Survivors In Action (SIA) is a non-profit national advocacy group that supports victims and the families of victims of any crime, including domestic violence, identity theft, elder abuse, Cyberstalking, traditional stalking, child abuse, rape, and sexual assault. Other national organizations typically help victims at specific points in their victimization cycle—such as when they first report the crime or in writing parole opposition letters—leaving “gaps” in needed services. SIA is the only organization that fills the gaps, providing support through all stages of the journey from victim to survivor, with no time limitations, cut-off dates, or conditions. Our mission is to ensure that no victim anywhere in the nation is left behind.
Raising arrests in Arizona
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
September 7, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
On August 28, the AZ 'Public published this story about a report published by ASU's Morrison Institute for Public Policy
As the article says: "As Phoenix police and prosecutors refine the way they approach domestic violence, an analysis published earlier this month showed that suspects in nearly half of the city's domestic violence cases had their charges dismissed before or during their initial court appearances.
The assessment, part of a series of criminal justice reports by ASU's Morrison Institute for Public Policy, concluded that 43 percent of Phoenix domestic violence suspects saw their cases dropped shortly after their arrests - a rate that "warrants further examination," according to researchers."
I invited Richard Davis, board member of the Massachusetts-based Family Non-Violence, Inc. to comment on the Morrison Institute report:
Do Not Arrest
The Ms Foundation for Women in its report, Safety & Justice for All: Examining the Relationship between the Women's Anti-Violence Movement and the Criminal Legal System (MFSJ) questions the equity and safety of past and contemporary law enforcement domestic violence - arrest first, education and resources second - policies and practices. The Ms Foundation, similar to most interveners and many researchers, blame law enforcement for its undeniable historic and unjust domestic violence policies.
It is undeniable that some 40 years ago law enforcement did not make arrests for most misdemeanor domestic violence incidents. However, what is equally true is that studies sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recommended to law enforcement that it should have in place special domestic violence units that would “separate and mediate” and not arrest the quarrelsome or assaultive couple. It was DOJ sponsored reports and the 20th century domestic violence experts that recommended law enforcement; not arrest.
Despite the fact that law enforcement was not responsible for these “separate and mediate recommendations,” most interveners and many researchers consistently blame law enforcement for its historically poor domestic violence arrests record. Most often these retrospective studies exclude the context and circumstances of individual incidents and ignore the fact that the majority of domestic violence interventions were minor or there was no "probable cause" for arrest. And these retrospective studies often ignore the fact that in the majority of these incidents law enforcement did not have the authority to arrest.
To this very day there is not a single empirical evidence-based study which documents that, contemporarily; law enforcement institutionally ignores or minimizes injurious or serious domestic violence assault. Complaints otherwise remain anecdotal and disingenuous.
Do Arrest
Some 40 years later, the DOJ, with a June 2009 National Institute of Justice Special Report, Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research: For Law Enforcement, Prosecutors and Judges suggests that “arrest” be the default position for all domestic violence incidents. Most researchers and interveners also recommend that law enforcement have in place special units that arrest for all domestic violence incidents regardless of severity.
For many years now, DOJ sponsored reports have encouraged pro-arrest, preferred arrest, mandatory arrest and now default arrest policies. Regardless of the label there is no question that the majority of studies sponsored by the DOJ are recommending arrest policies “as the default position” for law enforcement.
Perhaps as a pretense that the DOJ reports are not actual “recommendations” the DOJ always includes a disclaimer of blame on the pages of their “sponsored” reports noting that these reports “do not reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.”
However, law enforcement administrators are acutely aware that if they do not adopt policies that “encourage arrest” they will not receive any funding from the multi-billion dollar Violence Against Women Act, they will face the wrath of domestic violence interveners in their community and become the targets of domestic violence litigators.
While there should be little doubt that the DOJ “default arrest position” is intended to help families, it may actually play a role in fulfilling the worst fears of the MFSJ report. Mandatory arrest policies seem to be creating a law enforcement domestic violence dragnet for people at the lower socioeconomic educational strata of society.
Another factor that many contemporary researchers often seem unwilling or unable to accept the fact that data from some DOJ sponsored report, and many others, suggest that mandatory arrest policies actually endanger some families.
National Institute of Justice Reports
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) report, Controlling Violence Against Women: A Research Perspective on the 1994 VAWA’s Criminal Justice Impacts should be read by all domestic violence advocates and public policy makers.
This report concludes that: “Above all, they [public policy makers] need to know that their policies and practices will not endanger women [emphasis added]. Unfortunately, there are too few preventive impact evaluations of policies already in place and fewer still that approach methodological standards insuring sound data for shaping policy.”
Further the above report notes that, “We still have much to learn about differences in offenders and differences in populations of victims to justify advocating one policy over another without qualifications.” This prudent and sensible advice has fallen on the blind eyes and deaf ears of many domestic violence interveners and many public policy makers.
The report Forgoing Criminal Justice Assistance: The Non-Reporting of New Incidents of Abuse in a Court Sample of Domestic Violence Victims documents that rigid mandatory interventions ignore the diversity of victim's desires, and the lack of varied programs suited for the characteristics of multi-problem offenders can cause many victims to ignore the system designed to assist them.
The NIJ report, “Effects of No-Drop Prosecution of Domestic Violence Upon Conviction Rates” says that: “Finally, we do not know whether no-drop increases victim safety or places the victims in greater jeopardy. . . Before no-drop is embraced as a desirable policy, we owe it to victims to find out whether they are well-served by taking away their right to decide the extent to which they want to pursue a criminal justice solution to their problem.”
Another NIJ funded report that is important concerning legislation is The Exposure Reduction or Backlash? The Effects of Domestic Violence Resources on Intimate Partner Homicide. It suggests that: “The results for prosecutor willingness suggest that simply being willing to prosecute cases of protection order violations may aggravate already tumultuous relationships. . . Increases in the willingness of prosecutors’ offices to take cases of protection order violation are associated with increases in the homicide of white married intimates, black unmarried intimates, and white unmarried females.”
The National Research Council (NRC) report Advancing the Federal Research Agenda on Violence Against Women notes that researchers and scholars WHO DO NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN VIOLENCE, ABUSE, OR BATTERING MAY DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD. Mandatory arrest laws in Arizona demand that law enforcement officers ignore those distinctions.
Raising Arizona
Anyone and everyone who is concerned about the issue of “domestic violence” and its intersection with the criminal justice system should read all of the Arizona State University Morrison Institute for Public Policy (MIPP) publications.
These MIPP publications very clearly document that mandatory arrest laws in Arizona do not distinguish between minor incidents (misdemeanors) and serious incidents (felonies.) All domestic violence studies clearly document the majority of domestic violence incidents are minor events. Many families do not want a family members arrested for a one time minor physical or verbal incident. Very simply put our public policy makers in Arizona and elsewhere have placed the cart (arrest) before the horse (resources.)
Risk Management: Assessing Domestic Violence Suspects Arrested in Phoenix suggests that as many as 1 of every 4 arrests might not have been made if it were not for mandatory arrest policies and they present a 0 risk factor of re-offending. It also suggests that the majority of arrests (62%) present a very low risk of re-offending.
Not many years ago the majority of domestic violence offenders [80%] who were arrested had histories of prior criminal behavior. The RMADVS report suggests that in Phoenix the majority of people arrested [58%] did not have prior criminal records.
Two Simple Questions
(1) Why does it appear that most Arizona domestic violence interveners, public policy makers and prosecutors have ignored the above NIJ studies?
(2) How is it possible that domestic violence interveners, public policy makers and prosecutors are unwilling or unable to recognize that “…there are too few preventive impact evaluations of policies already in place and fewer still that approach methodological standards insuring sound data for shaping policy.”
There are many domestic violence interveners who continue to believe that mandatory arrest policies and practices are necessary, because if they save only one life they are worthwhile. What these interveners are unwilling or are unable to understand is the fact that this philosophic belief demands that they must also acknowledge that if these policies and practices take only one life, they are not worth the effort. Are not the lives of those who may be harmed by mandatory domestic violence arrest policies and practices as worthy as those who may be helped?
Recommendation
I suggest that the Arizona domestic violence interveners, public policy makers, law enforcement administrators, and prosecutors read the most important of all the NIJ studies to date. The Effects of Arrest on Intimate Partner Violence: New Evidence From the Spouse Assault Replication Program This landmark study has many recommendations that the above professionals in Arizona seem to have ignored. The most important of all might be:
Future research in this area needs to assess the benefits and costs of arresting all suspects before there can be a systematic conclusion of preferred or mandatory arrest policies (p. 14).
And in the irony of all ironies, many domestic violence interveners, public policy makers, law enforcement administrators, and prosecutors often cite the data in this NIJ study as the reason for mandatory arrest polices. In fact on page 13 the authors issue another warning ignored in Arizona:
This suggests that policies requiring arrest for all suspects may unnecessarily take a community’s resources away from identifying and responding to the worst offenders and victims most at risk.
Richard Davis, Lt. (ret), Vice-President, is a retired lieutenant from the Brockton, MA Police Department. He has undergraduate degrees from Massassoit Community College and Bridgewater State College, as well as a graduate degrees in criminal justice from Anna Marie and another graduate degree in liberal arts from Harvard University. He is a member of the International Honor Society of Historians and an instructor for Quincy College at Plymouth, MA He is also a columnist for PoliceOne.com
Abused women who killed their husbands seek parole
St. Louis Examiner (MO)
September 10, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Three Missouri women serving life prison sentences for their husbands’ murders are finally getting a new chance at parole. Their convictions are over 20 years old, but their claims of domestic abuse are only just being heard.
The recent parole hearings for Roberta Carlene Borden, 64, Ruby Jamerson, 56, and Vicky Williams, 54, are the result of a decade-long effort by the Missouri Battered Women’s Clemency Coalition. Joe Church, a financial advisor from St. Louis County, formed the coalition when he discovered a woman he went to high school with was behind bars for the murder of her abusive husband. Church gathered the support of various attorneys, all four Missouri law schools and advocates for domestic violence victims to fight for his friend's, and other battered women's, voices to be heard.
The Clemency Coalition helped draft the 2007 bill (217.692 RSMo.) that allows the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole to conduct case reviews and parole hearings for women who are incarcerated for killing their abusers. But there’s a catch. To qualify for a parole hearing, the candidate must already have served 15 years of her sentence and have no prior violent felonies. In addition, the woman must not have previously been allowed to produce evidence of abuse in court and her guilty plea must be before 1991. Only four Missouri women behind bars met the criteria. The Clemency Coalition already earned the release of one of these women because of the 2007 bill; now they're working on the other three.
This bill is important because, until 1991, spousal rape wasn’t even recognized as a crime under Missouri law. When Borden, Jamerson and Williams were arrested in the late 70s and 80s, few resources existed for battered women and abuse at home was meant to stay at home, not be brought to court. Congress did pass the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, but it was a decade too late for Borden, Jamerson and Williams.
Giving these women a new chance at parole isn’t meant to negate their crimes. It’s meant to recognize the fact they may have been victims too. Katherine Goldwasser, a law professor at Washington University who has worked with the Clemency Coalition, said it best: “There are aggravating, mitigating circumstances that don’t excuse you for killing someone, but make it more understandable.”
The women may meet some opposition to their abuse claims, though, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
The decisions of their parole hearings should be announced within the next few weeks.
The History of the Violence Against Women Act
US Department Of Justice
Office Of Violence Against Women
September 14, 2009
Survivors In Action & Maria Phelps teaming up and starting Project Lily for a NYC victim of abuse
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore
September 23, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Survivors In Action and Maria Phelps are teaming up and starting Project Lily for a NYC victim of domestic violence in need of reconstructive surgery due to abuse. Many days ago, both the victim and Maria Phelps emailed the NCADV, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, for help and assistance with the Cosmetic and Reconstructive Support Program application to no avail.
No one responded to their emails, no one reached out to the victim. After the NCADV visited Maria Phelps and read about this particular story, and the way they were being portrayed in her blog post, they quickly emailed Maria today and tried to make up for the misunderstanding. Which is great, we hope that their response will lead to action and to efforts to aid this victim who has been left behind.
Maria posted their letter in the comments section of her last blog post for those interested in reading the NCADV response.
Having said that, Survivors in Action and Maria Phelps are taking matters into our own hands and we are raising money for this victim so that she may get the help she is in need of. This woman has survived a cruel and brutal act of violence that has left her covered in scars, scars that dig deep into her body and across her face.
This brave victim is in need of dental reconstruction and cosmetic reconstruction due to domestic violence and has gone 4 years without proper help. She contacted Maria Phelps about a month ago for help, and now we are all taking action so that she is not left behind like so many other women affected by this crime.
We are cordially requesting that you please make a donation to Project Lily so that this victim can get the medical help she deserves. All donations will go directly to this NYC victim for medical procedures. Please pass around this information to your friends,family and loved one's we appreciate your donations.
Survivors in Action will be setting up a Cosmetic Surgery Fund and program for victims of domestic violence that have been turned away by larger organizations or are simply in need of fast and reliable help.
Survivors in Action is a non-profit national crime victims organization founded by Alexis A. Moore, a survivor in California. SIA has over three thousand volunteers from across the world supporting their mission and helping to ensure "No victim is Left Behind". SIA offers services to victims of any crime who are in need.
Lame Deer man sentenced as habitual domestic abuser
Billings Gazette, The (MT)
September 24, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
A Lame Deer man who admitted being a habitual domestic abuse offender will spend 14 months in federal prison.
Earlier this month, Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull sentenced Vaughn Thomas Shoulder Blade, 40, to the term after he pleaded guilty to domestic assault by a habitual offender.
Shoulder Blade is the first in Montana to be prosecuted under a new federal law that makes domestic abuse in Indian Country a felony after two previous convictions. The statute was part of the 2005 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Lori Suek said in court records that Shoulder Blade's wife reported last Nov. 19 to the Colstrip Police Department that he had assaulted her the night before at their residence. The victim said Shoulder Blade had hit her with the buckle end of his belt, hit her with a closed fist and knocked her unconscious. She suffered numerous bruises from the assault.
Shoulder Blade has two prior domestic assault convictions against the victim in tribal court. The two lived together at the time of the assault and have children together.
WOMEN HELPED BY 1994 LAW - OUR VIEW
Hartford Courant, The (CT)
September 26, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
On the 15-year anniversary this month of the federal Violence Against Women Act, the awful truth is that women are still being punched, kicked, stabbed and thrown down stairs in shocking numbers. Many end up in emergency rooms after enduring months or years of assaults.
Vice President Joseph Biden, who was then a U.S. senator, deserves credit for drafting landmark legislation that finally became law in 1994. The law provided money to fight domestic violence and squarely placed the issue on the national agenda. Intimate partner violence in the U.S. has fallen since then.
Still, it is far too common and underreported, and women are the usual victims. About 1.5 million women are raped or assaulted each year by a spouse or boyfriend. It's such a large problem that Hartford Police Chief Daryl K. Roberts is setting up a domestic violence unit, and President Barack Obama has created the post of White House adviser on violence against women.
For sure Connecticut has made progress. The Tracey Thurman law, named after the Torrington woman who was savagely stabbed by her husband, now mandates an arrest if there is evidence of a crime. Some courts created special dockets for domestic violence cases. Police are better trained.
And yet the sad reality is that domestic violence incidents in Connecticut continue to pile up at a rate of roughly 20,000 each year. Women often stay in abusive relationships, mistakenly believing that if only they tried harder to please, their partners would not harm them. Others are too terrified to leave.
Ending domestic violence or even significantly reducing it will require a broad cultural and political shift. One example is the farcical system that forces a woman to find a willing marshal to serve a restraining order on her abuser. In other states, court clerks must ensure that the papers are served, usually by police.
We know now that violence directed at women is about power and control by men demanding subservience. It will take educators, ministers, neighborhood leaders, coaches and others to send the message to boys and young men that domestic violence is never justified, period. Women, too, must know that they should not tolerate abuse, and that help is available.
Today, it is worth pausing to celebrate the passage of a law that finally recognized domestic violence as a major national issue worthy of the attention of Congress, the president and the American people.
SPEAKER PELOSI ISSUES STATEMENT ON 15TH ANNIVERSARY OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT
US Fed News (USA)
September 28, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., issued the following statement:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today after the House passed a resolution recognizing the 15th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA):
"On the 15th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act, we recognize the historic nature of this comprehensive legislation, and also the work that remains to be done.
"VAWA has brought communities together to address the appalling problem of violence against women and provided critical, life-saving support to so that victims do not have to suffer in silence. Based on the fundamental American value that no one should have to live in fear, this landmark legislation has improved the lives of countless. Women should feel safe whether in public or private: in their workplace, in their homes, and walking on the street.
"As we recognize the accomplishments of VAWA, we recognize that our work is not yet complete. We must continue vigorous enforcement against domestic violence and invest in initiatives that prevent crimes of violence against women. "VAWA is an example of the power of a bipartisan group of legislators determined to make progress. Today we recommit to the goal of ending the scourge of violence against women once and for all."
Biden commemorates Violence Against Women Act
Associated Press Archive
September 30, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Women's groups gathered at Vice President Joe Biden's home Tuesday night to toast the 15th anniversary of landmark legislation aimed at eliminating violence against women.
"You've helped so many women step out of the darkness. You've helped so many young girls expect a different future, expect different treatment," Biden said as he commemorated the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. "This is a day to celebrate. We have so much to be proud of."
The National Women's Law Center, FaithTrust Institute, National Network to End Domestic Violence and AAUW (formerly the American Association of University Women) were among the groups invited to the vice president's residence, located on the grounds of the U.S. Naval Observatory in northwest Washington.
Biden recalled how domestic violence was once regarded as a private matter. "It wasn't the business of the government. It's a family matter," he told about 100 guests. Advocates for women inspired a different attitude, he said.
The Violence Against Women Act, crafted by Biden while he served on the Senate Judiciary Committee as a senator from Delaware, led to more money for women's shelters and law-enforcement training.
Domestic violence rates fell sharply between 1993 and 2004. The Bureau of Justice Statistics said that "intimate partner violence" rates fell by more than 50 percent, which some experts attributed to key elements of the 1994 law.
Biden joined advocates from women's groups in saying that more needed to be done. "We cannot let this slip from the consciousness," he said.
Advocates are focusing on the International Violence Against Women Act, a separate piece of legislation, and reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act in 2011, said Juley Fulcher of the organization Break the Cycle.
Fulcher, a guest at the event, said there's more work to do to prevent dating violence and to provide services for teenagers who have experienced domestic and sexual violence. "There's definitely room for improvement," she said.
Advocates worry that high unemployment may be contributing to domestic violence across the nation. The National Domestic Violence Hotline has received about 21,000 calls on average a month this year. Last year, the average was 19,500, said Retha Fielding, a spokeswoman for the hot line.
Fielding said she believes the number of calls has risen because of the recession as well as increased awareness of the hot line number. When someone in a household loses a job or a family loses a house, a woman could feel as if she has fewer choices if she wants to walk away from the violence, Fielding said.
"They're afraid to leave or they can't make plans to leave because the situation has changed," she said. "Most of these women have children they have to take care of."
When asked how the government is responding to domestic abuse tied to the recession, Lynn Rosenthal, White House domestic adviser on violence against women, said federal agencies are looking carefully at the problem.
"We're very aware of it," Rosenthal said.
Wendy Murphy: An open letter to Whoopi Goldberg about the meaning of 'rape'
Bastrop Daily Enterprise (LA)
Author/Byline: Wendy Murphy; GateHouse News Service
September 30, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Dear Whoopi,
This week on "The View," you said Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to "unlawful sex with a minor" but that it wasn't "rape rape." So I've been wondering - What the hell is "rape rape"?
I know you said your point was to articulate the nature of the crime to which he pleaded guilty - which, you said, was somehow DIFFERENT from "rape."
It isn't.
"Unlawful sex with a minor" IS the crime of child rape in California.
So again - I ask you - how is "rape rape" different from "rape"?
Regular folks understand "rape" to mean "sexual penetration without consent" - and of course, consent is irrelevant when the victim is a child.
The law says "rape" means "sexual penetration."
The dictionary says "rape" is "forced sexual intercourse."
No matter which definitional source you use, Whoopi, Polanski "raped" his victim.
So I'm trying to understand what you meant when you say it wasn't "rape rape."
Did you mean it wasn't "real rape"?
What wasn't "real" enough about the crime for you, Whoopi?
A 43-year-old man forced his penis into a 13-year-old child's vagina - and then he forced his penis into her anus. How is this "rape" but not "rape rape"?
The victim was not only a child, she was also intoxicated because Polanski gave her booze and drugs before the crime. The child protested - told him to stop - but he continued. She was incapacitated to a point where she could barely walk, much less defend herself against her attacker. Is that enough for "rape rape," Whoopi?
What would have done it for you? If he'd used a knife - or jumped on her in a dark alley instead of a bed? If it had happened at a homeless shelter instead of the mansion of a famous Hollywood actor? If he'd had to remove a trench coat before committing the crime, rather than silk underwear from a fancy shop on Rodeo Drive?
What if the victim had been a little black girl from a triple decker in the poorest part of Los Angeles? Would that have been "rape rape," Whoopi? Or would you have still offered the same lame excuse you came up with on "The View" - that "people in other countries see things differently" when middle-aged men force themselves on children.
If it's true that 13-year-old kids in France are so disrespected they can anticipate being attacked by men, you can and should condemn the practice, not chalk it up to a "cultural difference" as if to suggest the United States might evolve one day to a period of enlightenment when we will be "liberated" enough to celebrate the sexual abuse of children.
Your audience is filled with women who need and deserve the empowerment potential in a show like yours. Cultural values are created, in part, through the dissemination of ideas. You had a chance to explain to millions of people why the personal autonomy, bodily integrity and liberty of all women and children is at stake when even one rapist is not held accountable for his actions.
At a minimum, you could have explained how backward we really are in this country - and how the epidemic of rape and child sex abuse serves as a kind of domestic terrorism that interferes with the freedom of millions of people who are affected by the disproportionate failure of our legal system to redress sexual violence. According to a study submitted to Congress in support of the Violence Against Women Act in the 1990s, by then Sen. Joseph Biden, only 2 percent of rapists spend even one day behind bars. Violence against women and children is grossly under-reported and under-prosecuted, and the data consistently shows that crimes against property are punished much more harshly than crimes against female bodies.
Rather than highlight this profound and pervasive injustice, you bemoaned the fact that Mr. Polanski was compelled to flee the United States after pleading guilty to child rape because he was about to go to jail for "a hundred years."
Many people would argue he deserved such a sentence, and under California law today but not back then, drugging and raping a child would expose Mr. Polanski to a mandatory minimum term of 25 years behind bars. But because he was allowed to plead guilty to only one of six felonies with which he was originally charged - he faced no more than four years behind bars, and some reports say the judge intended to impose a sentence of only a few weeks of incarceration.
Mr. Polanski arrogantly decided that he shouldn't spend any time in jail, and he fled this country spinelessly for a nation he knew would not extradite him for his crime. If it's true, as has been reported, that he took off because he thought it was unfair that he should go to jail after his lawyer worked out a "no jail" deal with the prosecutor, he had a right to withdraw his guilty plea and go to TRIAL - not PARIS.
That Mr. Polanski would show such disrespect for this country's legal system is a reason to punish him MORE, not less, for his crime. It may be a decades-old case, but it bears stating the obvious, that the law should not reward fugitives for their successful efforts to evade justice.
Nonetheless, Mr. Polanski is a man of wealth and power, and kids don't vote or have any money. Which is why people like you are so quick to say things that degrade children. Admit it Whoopi, you'd be talking out of the other side of your mouth if filmmaker Polanski were garbageman Polanski.
Next time, try reading the Constitution BEFORE speaking on this topic. There's nothing in there that says people of influence should not be held accountable for their crimes. In fact, try focusing on the 14th Amendment for a few minutes - especially the part about how all citizens are entitled to "equal protection" of the laws. Then try reading some of our most basic court decisions that discuss how the law is supposed to protect the weak, and deter the cunning.
You have a 13-year-old granddaughter, Whoopi. What does she call you? "Nana"? "Grandma"?
What if she told you that she had been "raped" by a 45-year-old man who stripped her naked and then penetrated her private parts even as she cried "no." Would you correct her for using the word "rape"? Would you say, "sorry sweetheart - what happened to you was not a "rape rape.'"
No matter how hard some people try to make the crime seem harmless and full of gray areas - it really is quite simple if you think about it the way someone famous once did: "rape is to sex what a punch in the mouth is to a kiss." Not all punches knock teeth out - but nobody ever says "it wasn't a "punch punch.'"
I will say one thing, Whoopi, in your defense. Maybe we SHOULD give up the term "rape" altogether and start calling it "bodily enslavement." We could put it in the Constitution as a civil rights crime, rather than in the lowly statute books alongside shoplifting.
I'm thinking if we had initially codified the offense in law where it truly belongs - under the umbrella of fundamental liberty - you might have stopped yourself before saying "it wasn't a violation of civil rights civil rights."
Can you see how dumb that sounds, Whoopi?
I hope so - because you are an important voice for women and children and I want you to sound smart.
Wendy Murphy is a leading victims rights advocate and nationally recognized television legal analyst. She is an adjunct professor at New England Law in Boston. She can be reached at wmurphy@nesl.edu. Read more of her columns at The Daily Beast.
International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA)
Wikipedia
The International Violence Against Women Act of 2015 (I-VAWA) is proposed legislation to address violence against women through United States foreign policy. The legislation was introduced in the 114th United States Congress in March, 2015. Similar legislation was introduced in the 110th and 111th United States Congress but was not passed into law.
Background
At least 1 in 3 women around the world are subject to sexual, physical or other abuse during their life, per estimates by the United Nations Development Fund for Women. Not only does violence against women prevent mothers from raising healthy children, it also affects the economic progress and stability within the country in which they live.
International Violence Against Women Act of 2015
The International Violence Against Women Act of 2015 (I-VAWA) (S. 713, H.R. 1340) was introduced to ensure that addressing violence against women is included in the nation's foreign policy, with best practices for preventing violence, protecting victims and prosecuting offenders.
The legislation was the result of efforts by:
- Amnesty International USA
- Family Violence Prevention Fund
- Women Thrive Worldwide.
Experts in related fields from 40 international and 150 U.S. groups provided input for the legislation.
The House of Representatives Bill (HR. 1340) was brought before the 114th Congress, sponsored by Representative Janice Schakowsky, Illinois's 9th congressional district. The Senate Bill (S.713), was introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer of California.
Criticism
I-VAWA has been criticized on the grounds that it would discriminate against male victims and impose Western values upon other societies. According to Wendy McElroy, a research fellow at The Independent Institute, the Act "constitutes a 5-year redirection of foreign aid funds in order to insert politically-correct feminism into the structure of other nations" and "revictimizes every male victim by denying his existence.
Many organizations support the I-VAWA Act, some of which are:
- Amnesty International USA
- American Jewish World Service
- Human Rights Watch
- International Center for Research on Women
- International Rescue Committee
- Refugees International
- Vital Voices
- Women's Refugee Commission
Help pass the International Violence Against Women Act
Washington Examiner (DC)
Author/Byline: Cassandra Clifford - DC Human Rights
September 30, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
In 2007 the International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA) was introduced to Congress by, then Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA) International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA). The plan was a bi-partisan and detailed plan which would put woman's rights at the forefront of the agenda.
With the allocation of $1 Billion USD there would programs in some 10 to 20 countries with have demonstrated extreme levels of violence against women and girls. The allocation of the funds would go into programs which would increase legal and health programs that would prevent, protect and safeguard womans rights. Other programs would also focus to seek a change social norms creating gender-based violence and the marginalization of women and girls. There would be funding allocated to increase women’s economic and educational opportunities, address specific increased of violence against women and girls in areas which have been affected by natural disasters and violent conflict, such as rape, and trafficking. Funding would also be allocated to increase the training of national and international security forces on matters of violence against women, especially that of a sexual nature. ,Additionally the act would also establish the Office of Global Women’s Initiatives in the State Department and the Office of Global Women’s Development at Agency for International Development (USAID).
Sadly the I-VAWA never passed in either the House nor the Senate, however the act once again in 2010, has a chance to thrive under the new administration. You can help see that this influential act finally has a chance to impact women across the globe by attending the Re-Introduction of the International Violence Against Women Act Hearing This Thursday. The Senate Foreign Affairs Committee will be holding a hearing on the International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA) .
Violence Against Women: Global Costs and Consequences Thursday, October 1st, 2009 2:30pm Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 106
Senate Foreign Relations Committee to Hold Hearing Thursday on Global Crisis of Violence Against Women
Amnesty International Praises Senators Kerry and Lugar for Commitment to Protecting Women
PR Newswire (USA)
October 1, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hear testimony on Thursday to support groundbreaking legislation that addresses the global crisis of violence against women and girls. Amnesty International praised Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) for their commitment to the International Violence Against Women Act and urged reintroduction of the bill, which would apply the force of U.S. diplomacy to fight violence against women in selected countries.
Violence, abuse and exploitation of women has reached epidemic proportions, with the United Nations Development Fund for Women estimating that at least one of every three women globally -- nearly a billion women -- will be beaten, raped, mutilated or otherwise abused during their lifetime.
"Every day, women and girls around the world are abused and killed with impunity," said Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA. "It is a moral outrage and the United States has a duty to try to stop the violence, which is rooted in a global culture that discriminates against women and denies them equal rights. The International Violence Against Women Act will give the United States a comprehensive way to respond to this urgent challenge."
In 2005, Amnesty International USA, the Family Violence Prevention Fund and Women Thrive Worldwide convened meetings to develop legislation that became the International Violence Against Women Act, recognizing that violence is a worldwide problem that needs to be addressed in a comprehensive way and that stand-alone programs are not enough. More than 150 U.S.-based experts, including 40 women's groups overseas, gave advice on the bill. More than 60 human rights, women's, humanitarian, development and faith-based organizations support the draft legislation.
The draft legislation had recommended creation of one central State Department Office for Women's Global Initiatives, which President Obama created early in his presidency.
Betsy Hawkings, Amnesty International USA's deputy executive director for research and policy, said: "Just yesterday, three reports by Amnesty International underscored the urgency of the ongoing human rights crisis of violence against women. These reports of public rapes of protesters by soldiers in Guinea, lack of access to justice for war crimes victims in Bosnia, and rape of refugee women and girls both inside and outside camps in eastern Chad, despite the presence of UN security forces, clearly illustrate the urgency for action on this critical legislation."
The International Violence Against Women Act includes provisions to support survivors of violence, hold perpetrators accountable and prevent violence. Efforts to end violence against women and girls would be integrated into existing, appropriate U.S. foreign assistance programs. The law would also give the United States greater capacity to develop emergency measures to respond to mass rape during conflict, including efforts to provide direct services to the victims and to hold the perpetrators accountable.
In testimony submitted for the hearing, Amnesty International said that while violence against women takes many forms -- domestic violence, female genital mutilation, honor killings, to name a few -- the crisis exacerbates instability and insecurity around the world.
Amnesty International is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning grassroots activist organization with more than 2.2 million supporters, activists and volunteers in more than 150 countries campaigning for human rights worldwide. The organization investigates and exposes abuses, educates and mobilizes the public, and works to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied.
SOURCE: Amnesty International
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: GLOBAL COSTS AND CONSEQUENCES
Government Press Releases (USA)
October 2, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Lugar and honorable members of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing on such an important topic. Violence against women occurs in epidemic proportions in many countries around the world. It cuts across socioeconomic, religious, and ethnic groups, as well as geographic areas. (n1) The United Nations estimates that one in three women around the world will be beaten, raped or otherwise abused during her lifetime. (n2) One in four women will be physically or sexually abused while she is pregnant. (n3) All over the world, women's organizations, and many men's organizations, are rallying around the issue of ending violence. Congress can take bold steps to help these organizations be more effective in their own internal programming and advocacy. On behalf of these women and men around the world, thank you for considering the steps that the United States can take to reduce violence against women - it is both the right thing to do and the smart thing to do.
I come to you today as president of the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW). ICRW tackles the complexities of the world's most pressing problems -- poverty, hunger and disease -- by demonstrating that a focus on women is necessary for lasting social and economic change. Research is our work, but ICRW is different from other think tanks. We are a "do-tank" that translates research findings into concrete steps that program designers, donors and policy-makers can take. We develop practical solutions that achieve greater impact, ensure efficient use of resources, and most importantly, empower women to change their own lives and their communities for the better.
The purpose of my testimony is to show the links between violence and economic development - how violence is not only a gross violation of human rights and a threat to a woman's health and well-being, but also a barrier to the economic development of families and communities. Furthermore, I want to discuss how economic empowerment - including working with men and boys - can be part of the solution to violence against women.
Economic Consequences of Violence
Violence against women has many direct consequences, including physical injury and emotional pain. A less immediate, yet equally damaging, consequence of violence is the economic injury to the individuals and households where violence occurs. The economic costs of violence against women are significant - to survivors themselves, to their family members and to their communities.
Costs to Individuals and Households
Families endure the direct financial costs of violence due to the expense of services used to treat survivors and apprehend and prosecute perpetrators. ICRW conducted a study of households in Uganda and found that each household incurs an average cost of $5 per incidence of violence. This is a substantial sum of money, considering that the average per capita income in Uganda is only $340. (n4)
Individuals can also face broader economic effects of violence, including increased absenteeism from work; decreased labor market participation; reduced productivity; and lower earnings, investment and savings. A recent ICRW study shows that almost 10 percent of women who are victims of violence take time away from paid work, an average of 11 days annually. (n5) Men who are perpetrators of violence also tend to miss work. After a particularly violent episode, men may flee their home and town for several days, missing work and losing income in the process. Both circumstances amount to less money for food, clothing, medical care, and school fees.
Violence against women also affects their health, which in turn impacts their productivity and ability to earn an income. A World Bank study estimated that annual rates of rape and domestic violence translated into 9 million years of disability-adjusted life years ni lost, including premature mortality as well as disability and illness. (n6)
Violence against women has inter-generational impacts, and is often correlated with disruption in schooling for the children of survivors. A study in Nicaragua showed that 63 percent of children of female survivors of violence must repeat a grade in school. The same study showed that children of female survivors left school an average of four years before other children. Such delays in the educational development of children can have long-lasting economic consequences for individuals and households. (n7)
Costs to Communities and Nations
Beyond the home, violence imposes a great monetary cost on the community. Valuable community resources must be spent on health services, court costs and social services to prevent violence, treat victims and apprehend and prosecute perpetrators. These costs are well-documented in industrialized countries such as Canada, where the annual monetary cost of violence against women has been estimated at Can $684 million in the criminal justice system and Can$187 million for policy. (n8) However, these costs are also shown in other countries, such as Uganda, where hospitals reported spending about $1.2 million annually to treat women victims of violence. (n9)
Countries, like households, also face economic multiplier effects of violence as high rates of violence against women diminish the potential economic value of nearly half the workforce. Studies in Chile show that domestic violence caused women to lose $1.56 billion in 1996, or 2 percent of GDP. In Nicaragua, violence against women cost 1.6 percent of the GDP, according to the same study. In both countries survivors of violence earned far less than other women, controlling for a number of factors likely to affect earnings (n10).
Economic Empowerment as a Solution to Violence
Effectively reducing violence against women requires an integrated approach that involves international and national lawmakers as well as community leaders, families and individual men and women. This integrated approach, recognized by the World Bank and other global leaders, aims to increase women's access to judicial and support services as well as to prevent violence from occurring. Though much work remains, improvements have been made to the laws and policies to protect women and girls from violence and to facilitate women's access to necessary support services.
However, we are not doing enough to prevent violence from occurring in the first place. We can prevent violence. And one of the best strategies to do so is by economic empowerment. By economically empowering women, we can increase their status within the household and the community and decrease their chances of suffering violence. We can also engage men and boys to address the prevailing community norms that might encourage violence. Without examining these factors and implementing preventative strategies, we will never see a sustainable reduction in violence.
In my work with ICRW, I have met countless working women - including market hawkers, farmers, and managers of small businesses. They demonstrate incredible ingenuity and resourcefulness in finding ways to earn an income and provide for their families. However, they often lack access to the necessary tools and resources to increase their economic returns. For example, I met a market woman in India, who traveled, on foot, every day from her tiny village - carrying an infant on her back and loaded down by produce to sell in the local market. This journey took hours, was physically exhausting, and barely earned her a sufficient income to survive and feed her children. Without a decent road or transportation, without access to business training or capital, without childcare options for her children, her options for a better income were scarce or nonexistent. Economically empowering women means giving opportunities where there are none and strengthening the contributions women already make to their communities by ensuring they are paid appropriately for their labor.
Developing strategies that lead to a better economic standing for women can ultimately help thwart violence. The violence they face is rooted in inequitable power dynamics within a household - men own the land, the home, all of the productive assets and control the income, even when women are the source of that income. Increasing a woman's economic independence can provide her the leverage to negotiate protection or leave a violent relationship. Additionally, women are more likely than men to spend their income on the well-being of their families, including more nutritious foods, school fees for children and health care.
One successful mechanism that is proven to empower women and reduce violence is microfinance. Microfinance consists of small loans usually given to poor people - mostly women - with little or no collateral to help them start or expand small businesses. Statistics show that women who received loans paid them back at rates close to 99 percent.
The benefits of these economic activities extend beyond the participants to their families and communities. Families can afford three meals a day rather than one. They can pay school fees and buy uniforms to send their children to school. They can expand their businesses and hire other community members as employees.
When microfinance is distributed in combination with other community programs, it can actually prevent violence. This is most clearly demonstrated by the Intervention with MicroFinance for AIDS and Gender Equity Project (IMAGE Project) in South Africa. Through the Small Enterprise Foundation, the program distributed small loans to women to start or expand small businesses and generate household income (n11). The program also provided training and skills-building sessions on HIV prevention, gender norms, cultural beliefs, communication and intimate partner violence. A random, controlled trial found that, two years after completing the program, participants reported a 55 percent reduction in incidence of violence by their intimate partners in the previous 12 months than did members of a control group. Women also reported higher confidence, autonomy in decision making, better relationships with their partners and other household members and improved communication skills. (n12)
In addition to access to financial services, women and communities benefit from increased access to land and property rights. They are not only able to reap more financial returns from their efforts; the ability to own and inherit property is clearly linked to decreased violence and increased security for women. Research in India found that 49 percent of women with no property reported violence, compared to only seven percent of women who owned property, even while controlling for factors such as economic status, education, employment and other variables. (n13)
Groundbreaking work in Peru during the 1990s shows how land titling can empower and benefit women. The government set about to create land titles, and mandated that married couples receive joint land titles. More than 50 percent of the beneficiaries of this policy were women, who then gained access to government-provided credit, and saw an improvement of employment prospects. (n14) If the data from India can be generalized, then we can assume that the land titling effort in Peru may have led to a decrease in violence against women.
However, I must also caution that there is evidence from Bangladesh and other parts of the world that programs increasing a woman's access to economic resources can put her at risk of increased violence. This is particularly true in settings where a woman's status is low, because increasing her income can lead to greater conflict within the family (n15). One of the ways to mitigate the risk of this kind of backlash by men is to engage them in economic development programs from the start.
During the 1980s and 1990s, men were viewed primarily as perpetrators, rather than potential partners in violence prevention. Accordingly, most programs focused on teaching men how to deal with anger and conflict without resorting to violence. Most batterers' treatment programs are run in coordination with the criminal justice system, with attendance mandated by the court (as an alternative to a jail sentence). International research has found, however, that these programs are not as effective in reducing male violence against women as prevention-based programs because they do not address underlying causes. This is particularly true in a setting where violence against women is culturally accepted. (n16)
Today, there are many successful programs that work with men and boys to reduce violence. Programs that target men are showing promising results - a recent review of 57 evaluated interventions with boys and men found that nearly two thirds showed evidence of behavior change. The programs that dealt with questions of masculinity and 'what it means to be a man' were found to be most effective. (n17) Rather than defining masculinity as violent and aggressive, the messages promoted through these programs are that caretaking and compassion are traits of 'real men.'
The key now is to scale up these small programs, and to increase our efforts to reach men and boys in schools, the workplace, sporting events, community centers and religious institutions.
The needs are particularly urgent in conflict and post-conflict settings. A recent meeting organized by ICRW and the World Bank called attention to the need not only to support survivors of violence, but also to hold perpetrators accountable for their actions, and to carry out prevention activities with men and boys who have witnessed or been involved in violence. While those men who use violence in conflict settings, including the brutal violence being carried out, need to be held accountable, it is important to acknowledge that there are many men who abhor such violence and could be engaged as agents of change if funding for programming were expanded.
Recommended Actions
The sheer scale and complexity of violence against women means that there is no single solution to the problem. The International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA), introduced in 2007 by then-Sen. Biden and Sen. Lugar, captures best practices and lessons learned from more than 40 years of development. This bill, if reintroduced by this Congress, should be a strong statement by the United States that violence against women is unacceptable. Specifically, any legislation to combat violence against women must include the following components:
1. Comprehensive, multi-sector strategies. Strategies to combat violence against women must include:
- Economically empowering women;
- Legal and judicial systems that strengthens and enforces laws to protect women, while encouraging women to be active and equal partners in society without fear of repression or violence;
- Health sectors that provide services to survivors of violence;
- Education systems that work to ensure girls going to and from school are safe; and
- Humanitarian efforts that recognize and prioritize the needs and and concerns of women.
All programs should, where possible, engage men and boys as partners.
One issue in particular that must be addressed is the issue of child marriage. Child brides are especially susceptible to violence, facing three times the risk of abuse compared to women who marry after the age of 18. Forcing children to marry is a violent act in and of itself, robbing girls of their education and freedom to decide when and who to wed. Child brides also tend to come from poor households and continue the cycle of poverty. There are programs that have raised the age of marriage in communities in relatively short periods of time. This committee should support and pass S. 987, the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act.
2. Data Collection and Impact Evaluation. As the president of a research organization, I know firsthand the importance of data collection, monitoring and impact evaluation. The only way to know that programs work is through the careful collection of inputs, outcomes and the evidence of their impact. Continued innovation and research into reducing violence against women is the best way to come up with long-term and sustainable solutions. Any bill that comes through this committee must include strong language to collect and systematize data from programs that deal with violence against women.
Members of this Committee, led by Senators Kerry, Lugar, Menendez and Corker, recently introduced the Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act (S. 1524), a bill that places a high premium on research, data collection and evaluation. I applaud this committee for the leadership you have shown thus far, and encourage you to mandate and fund the evaluation of programs that address violence against women.
3. Robust funding. Successful programs require adequate resources. Evidence points to many programs that work - through microcredit, through land titling, through engaging men and boys and through many other multi-pronged efforts. Many programs are vastly successful on a small scale, and are in a perfect position to be scaled up on a regional or national scale, yet lack adequate resources. Any effort to combat violence against women in a comprehensive manner must include funding for programs on the ground, research and data collection, and humanitarian interventions during conflict and disaster situations.
A substantial portion of IVAWA funds should go to strengthen women's organizations based in developing countries, because those on the ground know what is needed, and can most effectively use the funds.
Funding for violence programs should also be viewed as an investment. Increasingly, business leaders from all parts of society are realizing what ICRW has been proving for more than 30 years - that investing in women pays the biggest dividend. Why else would Fortune 500 companies like ExxonMobil, the GAP, and Goldman Sachs spend time, energy and capital investing in women around the world? Partly for philanthropic reasons, but also because they know that it is worth the investment. So I encourage Congress to follow the example of the marketplace and invest in women to create prosperity and security - for women around the world and for the United States.
Conclusion
This august body deals with many of the most pressing needs of the day - from climate change to health care to threats from rogue states to an economy tinkering on the edge. And through this hearing today, you add violence against women to this list. You face tough decisions day in and day out, and you have the opportunity to bring about enormous change to this country and around the world. Oftentimes there is debate about which is the best way to move forward.
But right here, right now, there is no debate. The lines are clear. By not acting, by maintaining the status quo, millions of women will continue to face violence every day. And their enormous potential will continue to be suppressed by the yoke of violence.
But if you refuse to acquiesce to the notion that violence against women is inevitable or acceptable, and you instead choose to put your moral and political authority behind the dignity and rights of women, you can help create a cycle of prosperity and peace. With your help, women and girls can be the catalyst for the next great development innovation, the drivers of economic recovery, and the leaders of a more peaceful and just world.
ICRW stands ready to support your efforts. Thank you for your time and I look forward to answering your questions.
ni "Disability-adjusted life year" is the measure of the loss of one year of full health, whether due to illness or premature death.
n1 United Nations Millennium Project. 2005. ?Taking Action: Achieving Gender Equality and Empowering Women.?
n2 United Nations Development Fund for Women. 2003. Not A Minute More: Ending Violence Against Women.Retrieved on December 4, 2008 from http://www.unifem.org/resources/item_detail.php?ProductID=7.
n3 Garcia-Moreno et al. 2005. WHO Multi-country Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence Against Women. World Health Organization. Retrieved on December 4, 2008 from http://www.who.int/gender/violence/who_multicountry_study/en/.
n4 ICRW. 2009. Intimate Partner Violence: High Costs to Households and Communities.
n5 Ibid.
n6 United Nations Millennium Project. 2005.
n7 Ibid.
n8 Ibid.
n9 ICRW 2009.
n10 United Nations Millennium Project 2005.
n11 Small Enterprise Foundation. 2009. Economic evaluation of a combined microfinance and gender training intervention for the prevention of intimate partner violence in rural South Africa. Retrieved on Sept. 28, 2009 from http://www.sef.co.za/files/01%20-%20Jan%20IMAGE%20Costing%20Study%20Working%20paper%202009.pdf.
n12 World Health Organization (WHO). 2009. ?Violence Prevention - The Evidence: Promoting Gender Equality to Prevent Violence Against Women.? Retrieved on Sept. 28, 2009 from: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/gender.pdf.
n13 Panda, P. 2002. Rights-Based Strategies in the Prevention of Domestic Violence. ICRW Working Paper.
n14 ICRW. 2009. Innovation for Women's Empowerment and Gender Equality.
n15 Koenig, M & Hossain MB et al. 1999, =Individual and community-level determinants of domestic violence in rural Bangladesh'. Hopkins Population Center Paper on Population. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins School Public Health, Department of Population and Family Health Sciences: 32.
n16 Morrison, A & Ellsberg M et al. 2007, =Addressing Gender-Based Violence: A Critical Review of Interventions', The World Bank Research Observer 22(1): 25-51.
n17 Barker, G., Ricardo, C. and Nascimento, M. (2007). Engaging men and boys in changing gender-based inequity in health: Evidence from programme interventions. Geneva: World Health Organization.
NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH, 2009
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
Northwest Herald, The (Crystal Lake, IL)
October 3, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Domestic violence touches the lives of Americans of all ages, leaving a devastating impact on women, men, and children of every background and circumstance. A family's home becomes a place of fear, hopelessness, and desperation when a woman is battered by her partner, a child witnesses the abuse of a loved one, or a senior is victimized by family members. Since the 1994 passage of the landmark Violence Against Women Act, championed by then Senator Joe Biden, our Nation has strengthened its response to this crime and increased services for victims. Still, far too many women and families in this country and around the world are affected by domestic violence. During National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, we recommit ourselves to ending violence within our homes, our communities, and our country.
To effectively respond to domestic violence, we must provide assistance and support that meets the immediate needs of victims. Facing social isolation, victims can find it difficult to protect themselves and their children. They require safe shelter and housing, medical care, access to justice, culturally specific services, and economic opportunity. The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act supports emergency shelters, crisis intervention programs, and community education about domestic violence.
In the best of economic times, victims worry about finding a job and housing, and providing for their children; these problems only intensify during periods of financial stress. That is why the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides $325 million for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA). This funding will supplement the Federal VAWA and VOCA dollars that flow to communities every year, and enable States, local governments, tribes, and victim service providers to retain and hire personnel that can serve victims and hold offenders accountable. These funds will also bring relief to victims seeking a safe place to live for themselves and their children.
Victims of violence often suffer in silence, not knowing where to turn, with little or no guidance and support. Sadly, this tragedy does not just affect adults. Even when children are not directly injured by violence, exposure to violence in the home can contribute to behavioral, social, and emotional problems. High school students who report having experienced physical violence in a dating relationship are more likely to use drugs and alcohol, are at greater risk of suicide, and may carry patterns of abuse into future relationships. Our efforts to address domestic violence must include these young victims.
During this month, we rededicate ourselves to breaking the cycle of violence. By providing young people with education about healthy relationships, and by changing attitudes that support violence, we recognize that domestic violence can be prevented. We must build the capacity of our Nation's victim service providers to reach and serve those in need. We urge community leaders to raise awareness and bring attention to this quiet crisis. And across America, we encourage victims and their families to call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE. Together, we must ensure that, in America, no victim of domestic violence ever struggles alone.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 2009, as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. I ask all Americans to do their part to end domestic violence in this country by supporting their communities' efforts to assist victims in finding the help and healing they need.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.
BARACK OBAMA
Needed: Tougher laws to protect men from violent women
Detroit News, The: Blogs (MI)
Author/Byline: George Bullard
October 5, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
"You've helped so many women step out of the darkness."
Vice President Joe Biden, talking to women celebrating the 15th anniversary of the federal Violence Against Women Act.
Sadly, however, the country has not caught up with the times and also passed a comparable Violence Against Men Act. There's no specific federal protection for men.
I raise the point because, a number of years ago, the Detroit News reported a substantial numbers of police reports on domestic violence were filed by men against pushyv, iolent women. I forget the exact number. But men filed somewhere just under 20 percent of domestic violence complaints, in The News' survey.
Plus, The News, reported, none of the Metro Detroit domestic abuse shelters accepted men who were beaten up. The shelters had taken federal money and, by doing so, were mandated not to discriminate on the basis of gender. But they did anyway.
Having a gender-specific violence law is not all that logical, in the first place. If you get punched, you deserve the same level of protection, no matter what gender ye be. As it stands, women are getting a higher level of protection and redress if they are hit or otherwise abused.
Dodd Statement at Senate Foreign Relations Hearing on Violence Against Women
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) News Release
Government Press Releases (USA)
October 5, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, submitted the following statement at yesterday's Committee hearing concerning the global costs and consequences of violence against women.
"For too long, women have gotten short shrift in development and foreign policy. Women's rights, women's health, and violence against women have a history as being designated and denigrated as "soft" issues," said Dodd. "The unassailable truth, however, is that promoting women's rights, women's health, and women's empowerment are not simply idealistic, moral goals. Rather, they are some of our most effective tools in achieving America's key foreign policy goals and meeting our most difficult challenges."
The full text of Dodd's remarks, as prepared for delivery, is below.
"I would like to thank Chairman Kerry for holding this very important hearing today, and I would like to welcome all of our witnesses for their testimony. The subject of this hearing is a very important one to me, and I am glad to see this committee and this administration address it.
For too long, women have gotten short shrift in development and foreign policy. Women's rights, women's health, and violence against women have a history as being designated and denigrated as "soft" issues. The goal of ensuring that all women have access to health care, equal protection under law, and the freedom to participate and thrive in society, has too often been seen as a noble but ancillary aspect of foreign policy--not worthy of our full attention, especially at a time when we are fighting two wars, struggling with an international financial crisis, and confronting the scourge of HIV/AIDS and terrorism.
The unassailable truth, however, is that promoting women's rights, women's health, and women's empowerment are not simply idealistic, moral goals, unconnected to our realpolitik foreign policy and national interests. Rather, they are some of our most effective tools in achieving America's key foreign policy goals and meeting our most difficult challenges.
When women thrive, everyone thrives; societies are more stable, economic prosperity increases, families are stronger, maternal and child death rates fall and repressive governments lose their grip. Improving women's and maternal health, stopping the practices of child marriage and female genital mutilation, and combating the trafficking of women and girls are not just fundamental American ideals, they are a strategic imperative.
For these reasons, I am thrilled to see that the Obama Administration has kept its promise to make the role of women central to our foreign policy. The historic creation of an Ambassador-at-Large for Women's issues is a tremendous step forward, and I can think of no one better than Melanie Verveer to fill that role. Secretary Clinton's efforts to bring women's issues to the front and center of the international debate has also done much to highlight the tremendous importance of women in our foreign policy.
Throughout my career in public service, I have fought for the rights of women both at home and abroad, and I plan on joining my colleagues, once again, in supporting the International Violence Against Women Act. This is a critical piece of legislation which seeks to protect, and, more importantly, empower the world's mothers and daughters. In the coming days, I also plan to introduce the Newborn, Child and Mother Survival Act, which will empower USAID to implement programs ensuring that mothers are healthy enough not just to survive pregnancy and labor, but also to thrive alongside their children. I would like to once again thank our witnesses for joining us today. I look forward to a productive discussion."
Domestic violence: new visions, new solutions
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
October 5, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Family Interventions in Domestic Violence: A guide to gender-inclusive research and treatment-John Hamel, LCSW Ed. (Springer Publishing, Fall 2006) Domestic Violence: New Visions, New Solutions. Cathy Young, Philip Cook, Sheila Smith, LCSW, Jack Turteltaub, Ph.D., and Lonnie Hazelwood, L.C.D.C.
INTRODUCTION
Our intent in this article is to focus on public policy recommendations for domestic violence, with implications for those involved in implementing public policy, as well as clinicians providing intervention services.
Domestic violence remains a serious and tragic problem, and more can and should be done to help women who are abused by their partners. However, a major criticism of current policy is that legal and public policy response to domestic violence has focused almost exclusively on the male batterer and female victim to the detriment of male victims and victims in same-sex relationships, at the same time overlooking needed treatment for female abusers. This does not preclude “conventional” legal interventions, but any one-size-fits-all policy in an area as complex and fraught with unintended consequences as family violence is bound to fail some of its intended beneficiaries. There is no single factor that accounts for domestic violence:
Family violence and socioeconomic status. While it is true that domestic abuse occurs in every social class, it is not equally prevalent in all social groups. Low income and low educational levels are major risk factors for domestic abuse (Straus & Gelles, 1990).
Domestic violence and substance abuse. Numerous studies demonstrate a strong correlation between domestic violence and alcohol or drug abuse (Anderson, 2002; Magdol, Moffitt, Caspi, Fagan & Silva, 1997; Potter-Efron, this volume).
Female violence. A growing body of research documents the role of female aggression in intimate violence (Archer, 2000; also see: Hamel & Nicholls, this volume; Dutton, this volume). All available evidence suggests that women are in greater danger of injury and death from domestic violence, but a sizable minority of those injured or killed are men.
Mutual Abuse. Maybe one reason for the lack of greater progress is that mainstream discourse on domestic violence does not recognize another major aspect of the problem—the possibility of mutual abuse when violence is not in self-defense.
Without consideration of these factors in program design, intervention and treatment, policies dealing with domestic violence are bound to remain woefully inadequate.
ARREST AND PROSECUTION
At present, mandatory or presumptive arrest, when there is probable cause to believe that domestic violence has occurred, is the law in more than half of all states (Mills, 2003). This policy remains the subject of some controversy. Although further research is needed, men who were the subject of a domestic violence complaint were somewhat less likely to re-offend if they were arrested; however, chronically aggressive batterers did not seem to be deterred by arrest. Some studies indicate that a majority of suspects discontinued aggressive behaviors even without an arrest. (Maxwell, Garner, Fagan, 2001). This suggests that policies requiring arrest for all suspects may unnecessarily dilute community resources by mandating arrest for all suspects and thus fail to provide specialized and targeted intervention strategies for the worst offenders and those victims most at risk.
Gender-biased application of mandatory arrest law raises serious civil rights issues. Based on known prevalence rates in the population, men are arrested and mandated to batterer intervention programs in alarmingly greater numbers compared to women (Hamel, 2005). This sends dangerous signals to both men and women in mutually violent relationships. Women may feel exonerated, absolved of any accountability for aggressive or violent behavior, escaping necessary interventions or counseling. Men may become alienated and hostile to a system they believe is stacked against them and unjustly favorable to women.
Paradoxically, mandatory arrests may disempower victims by taking the decision-making power out of their hands. The same criticism has been made of no-drop prosecution policies in which domestic assault cases are prosecuted even if the victim does not want to press charges (Mills, 2003).
Based on Mill’s research, female victims are less likely to report further violence if: the original arrest led to prosecution of their male partner; the justice system failed to enact a “more therapeutic” approach with the offender; and the victim felt she had no rights or input in the criminal justice system.
RESTRAINING ORDERS
Restraining orders or orders of protection, which typically prohibit not only harassment or abuse against the victim/plaintiff but any contact (including by mail, email, telephone, or through a third party), are another common tool used to decrease domestic violence. Most recently, many states have streamlined the process of obtaining an order, extended eligibility to people who had been in a relationship but had not lived together, and introduced harsh measures against violators, such as warrantless arrest, pretrial detention, and stiff jail sentences.
A number of legal professionals and civil libertarians have argued that the current restraining order system can often result in serious violations of defendants’ civil rights. In a 1993 article pointedly titled “Speaking the Unspeakable,” Elaine Epstein, past president of the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association, wrote that the pendulum had swung too far: “ The facts have become irrelevant. Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply, lest anyone be blamed for an unfortunate result … In many [divorce] cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage,” (Epstein, 1993).
A temporary (emergency) restraining order can be issued ex parte, i.e. without the defendant being present or even notified, much less informed of the specific allegations against him or her. Usually within less than thirty days, a hearing must be held on issuing a permanent restraining order that typically remains in place for a year. At the hearing, the defendant can present his or her side of the story.
Boston attorney Miriam Altman however, has written that in practice, the deck is stacked heavily against the accused: cross-examination may be limited, normally inadmissible evidence such as hearsay may be allowed, and “the mere allegation of domestic abuse … may shift the burden of proof to the defendant,”(Altman, 1995). In September 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down a restraining order partly on the grounds that the defendant was not allowed to cross-examine the complainant or to call witnesses on his behalf, (C.O. vs M.M., 2004). It is noteworthy that according to an official study, fewer than half of the restraining orders issued in the state every year involve even an allegation of physical abuse, and in many cases there were no accusations of verbal threats but only of verbal abuse, (Office of the Commissioner, 1995).
Once the restraining order is in place, a vast range of ordinarily legal behavior, such as all contact with a former spouse or children, is criminalized. A defendant can be prosecuted even if the complainant agreed to meet with the accused or had initiated the contact. It is difficult to determine the percentage of restraining orders that are based on frivolous charges or manipulation of the system.
The typical response to complaints about restraining order abuse is that protecting women must be a top priority. Balancing the rights of the accused against the safety of potential victims is always a difficult task in a free society. Yet, do restraining orders actually protect women from domestic homicide? A man who prepares to kill a woman and face a murder charge, or take his own life, which often happens in such cases, is unlikely to be deterred by a charge of violating a court order. Tragically, in case after case, women have been slain after filing a restraining order.
A study published in 1984, by Janice Grau, Jeffrey Fagan, and Sandra Wexler, sought to evaluate the effectiveness of restraining orders in Pennsylvania. According to the study abstract, “Interviews with recipients of restraining orders suggest that the orders are generally ineffective in reducing the rate of abuse of violence. However, they were effective in reducing abuse for women with less serious histories of family violence or where the assailant was less violent in general. They were ineffective in stopping physical violence, ”(Grau, 1984)
One particularly troublesome finding is contained in a 2001 report by Laura Dugan, Daniel Nagin, and Richard Rosenfeld prepared for the National Institute for Justice under a Violence Against Women Act grant, “Exposure Reduction or Backlash? The Effect of Domestic Violence Resources on Intimate Partner Homicide.” After examining domestic violence policies and homicide trends in various jurisdictions, the authors note, “Increases in the willingness of prosecutors’ offices to take cases of protection order violation are associated with increases in the homicide of white married intimates, black unmarried intimates, and white unmarried females, ” (Dugan, Nagin, Rosenfeld, 2001). In some cases, abusive men have obtained restraining orders against their victims as a form of harassment.
This article appears in the book: Family Interventions in Domestic Violence: A guide to gender-inclusive research and treatment-John Hamel, LCSW Ed. (Springer Publishing, Fall 2006). Excerpt used with permission.
Reported rape cases falling
USA TODAY (Arlington, VA)
October 6, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Reported rapes have fallen to the lowest level in 20 years as DNA evidence helps send more rapists to prison and victims are more willing to work with police and prosecutors, victims advocates and crime researchers say.
The FBI estimates 89,000 women reported being raped in 2008 - 29 women for every 100,000 people. That's down from a high of 109,062 reported rapes in 1992 - 43 women for every 100,000 people. Data for 2009 are not yet available.
"We have seen reform in how police work with victims, gather evidence and investigate rape; we've seen increased awareness of the crime, and we've seen better prosecution," says Michael Males, senior researcher for the Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice in San Francisco. "Hospitals now have rape kits that they didn't have 40 years ago" which make it easier to collect an attacker's DNA and other evidence of a crime.
Rape prosecutions have improved dramatically over the past two decades because of advances in DNA testing to pinpoint a rapist rather than forcing prosecutors to rely solely on a victim's identification of her attacker, says Kim Gandy, past president of the National Organization for Women and a former prosecutor.
Gandy recalls prosecutors' reluctance in the 1970s and early 1980s to take rape cases to trial because "no district attorney wants to have a low conviction rate on rape."
In 1994, the federal Violence Against Women Act provided $1.6 billion to bolster rape prosecutions.
"The level of interest and professionalism dealing with sexual assault cases increased as a result," says Scott Berkowitz, president of the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, a victims' advocacy group. Yearly statistics on rape prosecutions are not available, Berkowitz says, but prosecutors have told him they have learned to pursue such cases.
Use of DNA evidence has expanded gradually over the past 15 years and can put a rapist in prison the first time he's caught, preventing him from harming other women, Berkowitz says. Many rapists are repeat offenders.
Attitudes about rape also have shifted since high schools and colleges adopted public awareness campaigns in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Berkowitz says.
"There is a much greater understanding that this is a crime," he says. Surveys by his group show women are more willing to report rape now than two decades ago because they expect police will believe them.
"You don't see the nightmarish trials of the 1960s where a woman's reputation would be brought into question and people would conclude she deserved it," Males says.
Criminologists say an overall decline in violent crime in the last decade doesn't fully explain the decreases in rape.
Some factors that pushed crime down, such as the decline in crack cocaine markets, are unlikely to affect rape, says Richard Rosenfeld, criminology professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. Catching more violent criminals with better policing probably does contribute to the decline, he says.
Berkowitz says he is encouraged by the trends, but "we've still got a long way to go. We need to encourage more victims to report to police and guarantee that when they do report, the case is properly investigated."
Progression of the International Violence Against Women Act
Washington Examiner (DC)
Author/Byline: Cassandra Clifford - DC Human Rights Examiner
October 8, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
To follow-up to the post, "Help pass the International Violence Against Women Act", I wanted to update you to let you know that on Friday September 25, Amnesty International USA delivered a petition, which contained more than 30,000 signatures, to the White House, urging President Obama and Vice President Biden to call on Congress to re-introduce and pass the International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA) this fall.
On Thursday October 1st, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Senator John Kerry, held a hearing on “Violence Against Women – Global Costs and Consequences” to make the case for reintroducing the International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA) in Congress this fall. The hearing room was packed and overflowing, thanks to many of you, as activists, staffers, and various NGO’s turned out to hear the testimonies of government officials and NGO experts alike.
What will happen next? Work is being done to see that now the Senate hearing has passed, work is being done to ensure that the IVAWA is now introduced to the House of Representatives later this month.
Partner abuse laws roll back civil rights protections, African-Americans say
African Americans for Reform of the Violence Against Women Act
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
October 8, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
CHARLESTON, West Virginia – October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and a national civil rights organization is charging our domestic violence system undermines due process and respect for Constitutional protections, reversing decades of civil rights progress for Black and other minority communities.
These charges are made by African Americans for Reform of the Violence Against Women Act, a national non-partisan group. These concerns are affirmed by constitutional law experts such as University of Vermont professor Cheryl Hanna who once wrote, “Evidentiary standards for proving abuse have been so relaxed that any man who stands accused is considered guilty.”
According to African Americans for Reform of the Violence Against Women Act, many civil rights violations can be traced to the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). VAWA, the federal response to domestic violence, was first passed into law in 1994.
Under VAWA, the definition of domestic violence is so broad that almost any partner dispute or argument can be construed as abuse. VAWA also funds states to institute so-called “mandatory arrest” laws that violate probable-cause protections. Despite a lack of evidence, the accused is arrested and the presumption of innocence removed.
“The VAWA law is destroying the African-American family and poses the biggest challenge to civil rights since the Jim Crow era,” laments AAVR member Charles Pope. “VAWA was supposed to stop domestic violence, but what it’s really done is create victims of VAWA.”
False allegations of domestic violence are often made to gain tactical advantage in custody and/or divorce proceedings, according to family lawyers. These accusations are contributing to family break-down and the epidemic of single-parent households.
AAVR recognizes that domestic violence is a significant problem and is urging the reform of the Violence Against Women Act. AAVR calls for the repeal of mandatory arrest laws that violate Fourth Amendment probable-cause guarantees. Instead of mandatory arrest, the alleged victim and alleged offender should undergo a domestic violence assessment and treatment program.
AAVR is a national, non-partisan coalition of women and men who are concerned about the impact of domestic violence laws on African American communities.
Feminist DV service providers fight for cash and control, not equality
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
October 9, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
For years men have been claiming discrimination by feminist domestic violence service providers.
Law enforcement training is usually provided by these same agencies, causing discrimination to start at the first point of contact. Some men say they were bruised and bleeding when they were arrested during domestic violence calls after their wound-free female partners claimed fear. See Sex appeal blinds protectors of justice and The Face of Men Abused by Women.
Abused men with children are routinely turned away from protection shelters, just for having the wrong genitalia. And some fathers are prevented from seeing their children after mothers claim they're being stalked, even from thousands of miles away. See Abducted child's father faces prison for peaceful protest and Clinton ignores parents of children abducted to the US.
Today, men and the women who love them have reason to celebrate. On October 2 Men and Women Against Discrimination won a lawsuit against Family Services Board of West Virginia. (Ruling here.) The court decided that FSB's approach had, "a substantial chilling effect of suppressing their members expression of speech, thoughts and ideas relative to domestic violence by depriving them even of the opportunity to obtain certified services.”
FSB had set up a system of approving service providers that eliminated anyone who didn't agree with their principles. Providers were required to take 30 hours of training, part of which was to learn, "the understanding that domestic violence is deeply rooted in historical attitudes toward women." The problem is that statement has no bearing on reliable studies.
A year ago on October 13 California's Third District Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of abused men, saying a state funded facility violated their rights when it turned away Dave Woods and his daughter. The National Coalition For Men lead the charge.
This wasn't the first time feminist DV service providers in California fought equality to keep control over available DV funding. A few years earlier the LGBT community attempted to rewrite California's domestic violence laws with AB 2051 to make them gender neutral. According to the bill analysis:
This bill was originally drafted to make the existing grant program (funded by $23 added on to marriage license fees) gender-neutral and thus ensure that DV shelters catering to the LGBT community have a competitive chance to obtain grants from the DHS. However, the severe deficiency in funding of domestic violence shelters that provide services to battered women and their children caused an outcry among the existing domestic violence shelter providers. Subsequently, the bill was amended to create a separate fund for DV programs that are specific to the LGBT community.
Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR,) a non-profit non-partisan organization of both genders working to improve our nation's approach to solving domestic violence says the problem stems from the blatantly gender biased Violence Against Women Act. Their latest campaign "Restore Civil Rights to Domestic Violence Laws" shows how domestic violence laws violate Constitutional protections found in the First Amendment (right to assembly and to free speech), Second Amendment (right to bear arms), Fourth Amendment (probable cause for arrest), Fifth Amendment (due process), and Fourteenth Amendment (equal treatment under the law.)
Until the Federal govt fixes this at the top by renaming and reconstructing the Violence Against Women People Act, lawsuits like this will unfortunately need to continue across the country. When they won their case last year, NCFM attorney Marc Angelucci told ABC-7, "These programs will often still reach out to victims in a gender-specific manner, only referring to them as women and that doesn't help the male victims come forward. This is really going to take a long time and more lawsuits to change" Domestic violence laws violate Americans’ civil rights when they: Provide incentives to file false allegations Fund education and training programs that stereotype all men as abusers Expand the definition of “domestic violence” to include minor verbal disagreements, thus inviting heavy-handed state intervention into private family matters Short-circuit due process protections and remove the presumption of innocence Encourage the issuance of restraining orders, even in the absence of physical violence Promote mandatory arrest policies, even for minor violations of civil restraining orders Fund “primary aggressor” policies that profile men as abusers:
- Support mandatory prosecution policies
- Refuse legal assistance to persons falsely accused of domestic violence
- Discriminate against male victims
15 years of the Violence Against Women Act: its tragic consequences
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
Author/Byline: Trudy Schuett - Domestic Violence Examiner
October 15, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
As the 15th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act arrived last month, supporters from the president and vice-president, to people in charge of small, local programs lauded the Violence Against Women Act as something special – as if it was a real solution that was vitally necessary.
From the beginning, VAWA was based on little more than anecdotal evidence and supposition, provided in ample quantity by the set of horror stories collected by then-Senator Joe Biden’s staff at police stations, battered women’s shelters, and rape crisis centers. Then they took that information, ignored the fact it was often incomplete, had been collected under unusual circumstances in truly isolated conditions, and applied it to the entire population of women in the United States. The report generated by Biden and his staff in this exercise was entitled, Violence Against Women: A Week in the Life of America.
Biden says in his autobiography, Promises to Keep, “If we could have included unreported crimes it would have been 7000 pages.” This is one of many statements he makes demonstrating his ignorance – of not only the issue, but of information gathering as well. What local non-profit agency of any kind would not be entirely happy to tell a Senatorial aide precisely what he or she wanted to hear? What police department, sensing future availability of funding, would not be honored to cooperate by sharing any information they happened to have, even if it was raw data with little or no supportive information?
On another page in this book, he conflates animal shelters with women’s shelters, which is not even an “apples and oranges” statement. It’s more like comparing apples to computers; as the only thing the two items have in common is that the same word is sometimes used to describe them. Somehow the fact that there are more animal shelters than women’s shelters is less than compelling, when one recognizes the lack of relationship. One could also say there are more bus shelters, but that likewise has no relevance to women’s shelters.
VAWA establishes feminist pork
Despite the fact that no one has ever been allowed to challenge VAWA in various Congressional hearings since they began, VAWA was rejected several times by Congress, and in late 1991 Chief Justice William Rehnquist warned that the law would be used as leverage in divorce cases. Yet Biden rejected that idea out of hand. His worry of the time was the American Bar Association would not approve of VAWA. Like the feminist organizations that ignored VAWA until very late in the game, the ABA also began to see dollar signs and the opportunity for much money to be made. Of course they came on board, too.
When it was finally signed into law by President Clinton, it unleashed a veritable army of radical feminist operatives onto an unsuspecting American public. In those days their numbers were comparatively small. Today they are probably not much fewer in number than the 300,000 federal jobs eliminated in the political scheme outlined in Biden’s book to mollify the Republicans at the time of the initial passage of VAWA.
Suddenly, feminists with no training or qualifications for work of any kind became employable with nothing but a previously-worthless college degree in feminist studies to recommend them. There were federal, state, and local agencies to be staffed; indoctrination programs to be devised. Women who had devoted their lives to the destruction of their mythical “patriarchy” were now able to exercise their anti-male, anti-family agenda with the blessing – and paycheck – of the government. The philosophy that men are pigs and women are idiots, and only feminists know what is best for everybody was now considered not only reasonable, but a viable means for approaching a problem affecting a much smaller number of people – men and women alike – than these political zealots ever wanted to believe.
The lives of Americans have never been the same. In July 1995, Joe Biden entered a statement into the Congressional Record, among other things apologizing to the men in Bosnian concentration camps, apparently blissfully unaware he had set in motion the possibility for the same future conditions for American men. One cannot help but wonder how someone so disingenuous, so gullible, could ever attain the position of Vice President of the United States. Unless, of course, there was another agenda behind this piece of legislation.
15 years of the Violence Against Women Act: its tragic consequences - Part 2
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
Author/Byline: Trudy Schuett - Domestic Violence Examiner
October 15, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Progress interrupted
I have no doubt that Sept 13, 1994 was a day of mourning for many in the developing field of intimate partner abuse.
In shelter programs and research facilities across the country, a realistic picture of the issue had begun to coalesce; one that showed both sexes equally likely to abuse and be abused. The shelter model itself was beginning to be questioned as less than effective, as was the dogmatic “Duluth Model” of dealing with men designated as batterers. After all, society had made great changes in the time since the original programs were founded. Perhaps something less drastic, less damaging to families, while at the same time more successful than the methods of the day was on the horizon.
With programs based in equality and compassion; helping families to overcome their difficulties without interference from highly politicized government programs, much progress may have been made in dealing with the issue. We will never know, as the new view of the issue was diametrically opposed to the restrictive and hopelessly outdated picture VAWA created.
At a remarkable level of arrogance, the feminists in charge of the public policy response to what was now being called, “domestic violence” styled themselves as “experts” in this field that was still new enough that expertise was something very few could realistically have attained. Setting aside such things as scientific method as “masculine,” “of the patriarchy,” and therefore suspect, these self-proclaimed experts began churning out reams of documents they called “studies,” which inexplicably all came to the same conclusion:
Men are pigs; women are idiots. Only feminists know what is best for everybody.
Hundreds, if not thousands of these bogus studies and reports are to be found here. While there are a few objective, properly conducted studies in this group, the percentage of those constructed only to reinforce the ideology is overwhelming.
When an indisputable fact outside the basic dogma appeared, such as women who seek out abusive partners time after time, despite all efforts at intervention, or male victims with enough witnesses and verifiable proof that cannot be denied; or even the fact of the variety inherent in human experience, the feminist brain trust has explained these away with rationalization and that peculiar, circuitous illogic unique to feminism. Researcher Murray Straus has commentary on this procedure here.
The inner workings of VAWA
From the Abstract of Violence Against Women: A week in the life of America.: "The Violence Against Women Act signals that crimes against women must be a national law enforcement priority, focuses on domestic violence, creates a civil rights remedy aimed at violent gender-based discrimination, highlights the unique problems facing young women on campuses, and recognizes the role the judiciary must play in providing an effective response to violent offenders."
VAWA is almost entirely theoretical in nature, with little or no consideration given to its effect on the individual, families, or the immediate communities in which they live and work. It is all about controlling large groups of people from a national level. Notice in the previous statement that domestic violence is but one of several issues deemed to be part of the vague “Violence Against Women” category.
Immediately following the passage of VAWA nearly 700 laws relating to this heretofore nonexistent concept of “gender-based crime” were passed at the state level, with many more to come in states and municipalities across the country. What is notable is that at no time has there ever been any consideration or discussion of whether these “gender-based crimes” have any basis in fact; or has there been a search for evidence they exist.
The emphasis of VAWA has been on involving ever more community agencies, public and private, and in making the basic message of feminist ideology palatable for the masses. Over 2 million people were indoctrinated by either OVW grantees or STOP subgrantees between 2004 – 2008. About 600,000 of those were law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and court personnel, though the identities of the remaining individuals is unknown to me as of this writing. Also unknown is the total number of students in this off-campus feminist studies program over the last 15 years.
Apparently the public is supposed to take the assertions of the feminists regarding partner abuse at face value and accept them, lest they be accused of misogyny, collusion with the patriarchy, or worse. In their zeal to “protect” women from these illusory “gender crimes,” the VAWA Army has compounded mistake on mistake until the situation for victims of intimate partner abuse has nearly come full circle; back to the age where there was no help available for anyone.
15 years of the Violence Against Women Act: its tragic consequences - Part 3
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
Author/Byline: Trudy Schuett - Section: Domestic Violence Examiner
October 15, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Victims and perpetrators designated by law
VAWA has never been about assisting individual women who are seeking aid; it has always been about laws, crime and punishment. VAWA ignores men’s rights – and women’s as well, in favor of establishing a right of government programs to orchestrate personal relationships.
Women have been considered to be too stupid to recognize when they are being abused, or to make their own decisions regarding their welfare and that of their children. Thus, “no drop” laws have been put into place in some areas to protect women from themselves. These laws prevent a designated victim from withdrawing charges of domestic violence, and provide for penalties should she not cooperate with law enforcement.
There is also a movement afoot to allow government officials who decide a woman is “at risk” to enter her home and make their own assessment. Historically, VAWA-trained officials have simply relied on coercion, threats and bullying to force women out of their homes and into shelters where it is believed these designated victims belong.
Little or no attention has been paid to the daily operations of shelters, which do almost nothing but provide some women a place to live and those seeking a divorce with free legal aid and instruction in radical feminist ideology. Even when the federal Office of Management and Budget evaluated VAWA programs in 2004 as “not performing,” nothing was done to improve shelter programs, nor were improvements even considered. A woman’s personal choices or even needs are almost universally ignored by VAWA. They are but pawns in a much larger game of political acquisition.
While there are no clear winners in this game, at least not in the general populace, the biggest losers have been men. VAWA – and the agencies it spawned – have instead provided a convenient excuse for a level of human rights violations unprecedented in modern times. Not since the Jim Crow laws of the 1st half of the 20th Century, has one group of people been targeted for such demonization and vilification. In this case, it’s not even a minority group, it is half the population of the world.
Once VAWA was established, with men designated as perpetrators, such things as due process of law and the right of the accused to confront the accuser were simply ignored. Forget the concept of “innocent until proven guilty,” which still applies even to accused serial killers. It seems a man accused of a “violence against women” crime has no rights at all. To their credit, law enforcement and the courts initially did what they could to uphold the letter of the law, but between the mass of new laws contradicting the rights of the accused and the constant run of propaganda, they were powerless against the VAWA Army and its message of retribution and revenge against the "patriarchy."
No one knows how many thousands of men and women have been left impoverished, battered by an uncaring system, and alone after mistakenly believing in the aid offered by the VAWA Army. How many children have been permanently damaged by the destruction of their homes and families in the name of “social justice,” because their parents were forced to take actions that strangers (with no interest whatsoever in the child’s welfare) insisted were for their own good? This is not even to consider the harassment and character assassination of little boys that is routinely conducted in shelter programs.
Today, both marriage and the family are in deep trouble. VAWA, and its destructive policies, have certainly played a part in this larger issue, as divorce and separation is the unfortunate first strike in this tragically incorrect “response to violent offenders.” It has never been any kind of solution to the problem of intimate partner abuse, because the problem itself was never defined or even partially understood before ambitious politicians in collusion with dangerously ignorant radicals seized the issue for their own purposes.
This quote, found at the website of the West Virginia Coaliton Against Domestic Violence is particularly chilling, once one recognizes what this "violence against women" issue is all about:
"...I believe it is most urgent for this movement's future to declare that violence against women is a political problem, a question of power and domination, and not an individual, pathological, or deviant one. Continuing to make violence against women public is itself a crucial continuing task. We also must become a movement led by battered women, women of color, and working class women. We must develop a progressive agenda, a long range vision of what kind of society is needed so that violence against women would not exist, and to ally with groups sharing a vision of a just society....."
__Susan Schecter
If the VAWA Army is allowed to continue its war against the family, there will soon be no families left to destroy. They are already about halfway there. It is time we started fighting back.
NCADV keeping the donation for themselves, you be the judge...
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action/SIA
October 16, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Coutesy of: Maria Phelps
I will only post two emails below, one from me and one from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, based in Colorado.
Last winter I sent the Coalition $630 for the Cosmetic and Reconstructive Support Program, a program that gives away free surgeries to survivors of domestic violence.
Email sent to Holly Barrett at the NCADV:
Holly,
I really need to ask you and the rest of the NCADV an important question regarding the $630 donation I made last winter. I just got off the phone with the Face to Face program and mentioned that I raised money for their cause through the Coalition, and they were in shock because they don't receive donations.
My intention, and cause, was to support this program through the Coalition--not give a donation for administrative costs or anything else the Coalition may need at the main offices. I would like to know where my donation went and if it didn't actually go to the Face to Face cause, then where to?
People that donated to this program through the Coalition were all under the impression that they were helping survivors get surgeries, so I hope that it did in fact go toward that. Thank you.
Email sent back to me by Rita Smith, Executive Director at the NCADV:
Maria,
Holly is no longer with NCADV, so please delete this email address from your address book.
Your donation of $630 was used to cover a portion of the costs of the advocate's time who works directly with each survivor to assist them in getting their applications filled out correctly so that they can be referred to the Face to Face program and be assigned a doctor.
Until they get the application from NCADV, get any answers to questions they have about the program and get a referral to a local advocate to complete the application, they can't be referred to a doctor. This process takes direct time with the NCADV advocate on the telephone and through email conversations to fully complete the first step in the process.
The NCADV advocate spends the time on the phone with each applicant to make sure they are emotionally ready to go through reconstructive surgery and to make sure they have a local advocate they can work with during the surgery and recovery process. The surgery often brings up strong emotional memories of the violence that caused the injury or scarring, and we want to make sure they are ready and supported to complete the process successfully. The surgeons are not equipped to deal with those emotional responses, and we make sure the survivor is connected at the local level to assist them through the process.
Face to Face does it's own fundraising to cover related costs for the doctors and administering the program and they are a separate 501(c)3 non-profit. We both have to raise the funds every year to ensure that we can continue to provide this service to victims of domestic violence, and appreciate all efforts to assist us in being able to offer this unique resource.
Rita SmithExecutive - Director NCADV rsmith@ncadv.org
Womens Legal Resource
Maria Phelps donated money to the NCADV to assist victims of domestic violence who need reconstructive surgery. Rita Smith, the Executive Director responds by saying the money was spent on the advocates at the call center. Now, something is completely wrong with these organizations and I say shut them down now. I can do a better job than what Rita is doing, at least the money would go to the victims.
KANAWHA JUDGMENT, COVERAGE
Domestic violence issues misrepresented
Charleston Gazette (WV)
Editorial
Author/Byline: Sue Julian and Tonia Thomas - Coordinators of the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
October 18, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence is compelled to respond to media coverage of the recent summary judgment issued by Judge James Stucky of Kanawha County Circuit Court. The judicial document, as well as subsequent newspaper articles, fails to capture the essence of the lawsuit issue, confuses elements of relevant points and implies fallacious discriminatory practice by community-based programs.
We offer the following clarification reflecting community-based service practice and statewide coordination of the Certificate of Advocacy Project.
First, Men and Women Against Discrimination filed a lawsuit against the Family Protection Services Board, the state board that licenses domestic violence programs. (The Coalition Against Domestic Violence is not a party to the lawsuit.)
The Family Protection Services Board issues and monitors rules and regulations that hold domestic violence programs accountable to professional standards promoting victim safety, community involvement, fiscal stewardship and comprehensive services. The issue of the lawsuit is whether these standards discriminate on the basis of gender.
Second, the confusion contained in media articles reflects convoluted points described in the lawsuit and the summary judgment. Reframing those points, we offer the following facts:
Local domestic violence programs in West Virginia offer services to all victims of domestic violence regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, class, disability, age, etc. No victim of domestic violence is excluded from receiving services, referrals or assistance. Domestic violence programs work closely with other community-based agencies to offer comprehensive services addressing the multiple and often complex needs of victims. Licensed domestic violence programs and advocates work tirelessly in the most rural areas of this state offering support, encouragement, safe space and nonjudgmental advocacy.
The lawsuit and summary judgment do a disservice to all victims of domestic violence - especially male victims - by implying community-based programs dismiss realities of male victimization when, in fact, all domestic violence programs offer services to both male and female victims.
Third, to enhance knowledge, skill and response efforts by advocates in member programs, the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence created a Certificate of Advocacy Project - a training project to address the needs of advocates. The Certificate of Advocacy itself is a document that says an individual employed by a member program attended and completed identified trainings in specific areas related to domestic violence. The connection between the commitment to train domestic violence advocates and the Family Protection Services Board is contained in the Rules that require a minimum of 33 percent of program advocates to complete the Certificate of Advocacy Project. This particular rule highlights the importance and responsibility of assuring licensed domestic violence programs employ trained, skilled and knowledgeable advocates. The Certificate of Advocacy is inclusive and open to all advocates employed by member programs of the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
In addition to the above points, the recent summary judgment mischaracterizes the 2008 California case. In Brown v. Yana, while the California Court did rule that statutory language should be gender neutral, the court did not require programs to provide equal services. Quoting the 2008 California ruling:
In reforming the statutes that provide funding for domestic violence programs to be gender-neutral, we do not require that such programs offer identical services to men and women. Given the noted disparity in the number of women needing services and the greater severity of their injuries, it may be appropriate to provide more and different services to battered women and their children. For example, a program might offer shelter for women, but only hotel vouchers for a smaller number of men.
Sometimes the success of our effort for social change is gauged by the intensity of pushback from those who benefit from the status quo. The Coalition Against Domestic Violence is an organization whose mission and work is being challenged today by individuals and groups who question the pervasiveness of violence against women and who assert that the empowerment of women is itself the demise of family stability and safety. These groups are organized to overturn years of advocacy work that create safe havens for victims of domestic violence and that secure legal recourse for adult and child victims living in homes terrorized and betrayed by the very person who claims to love them.
There are a growing number of fathers' rights groups across the country working to dismantle the Violence Against Women Act passed by Congress in 1994. Research shows these groups oppose policies that require the consideration of a history of domestic violence at custody determination; lobby against efforts to ensure that supervised visitation centers cooperate with domestic violence service providers to secure victims' safety; promote presumptive joint custody and lower child support payments; and portray women victims as perpetrators of domestic abuse. Factors such as these directly relate to some of the most serious problems persons who are battered and abused report, including not having their reports of violence taken seriously in court, being pushed into unsafe custody arrangements by the courts, and seeing retaliatory abuse claims filed by their abusers.
Although distracting, the current lawsuit does not overshadow - or change - the meaningful work happening across the state of West Virginia. The vast majority of women and men in this state understand that violence against women (rape, domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, etc.) occurs in disproportionate numbers and that domestic violence programs in this state are committed to serving all victims of domestic violence. Men and women in West Virginia are standing up and speaking out support of community-based domestic violence programs. We could not do our work without such broad-based support. The mission of the Coalition Against Domestic Violence compels us to move forward with integrity and purpose.
Julian and Thomas - team coordinators of the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
.
.
.
Court set to review discrimination case
July 5, 2010
Herald-Dispatch, The (Huntington, WV)
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
HUNTINGTON -- Samuel May is a licensed pharmacist and prior victim of domestic violence.
The Huntington resident now worries the state Supreme Court could make West Virginia "the laughing stock of the nation," if it overturns a October 2009 decision of Kanawha Circuit Judge James C. Stucky ordering certain rules set forth by the state Family Protection Services Board null and void because they are gender biased against men.
The board, which is part of the state Department of Health and Human Services, petitioned to appeal Stucky's decision in January and the state Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in May. It could be argued before the justices later this year.
May regards the high court's decision as crucial.
"We feel this could be a make-or-break decision," said May, who is among the plaintiffs in the Men and Women Against Discrimination case. "Male victims could be second-class citizens."
In the board's petition to the Supreme Court, it argues it treats men and women equally. It provides examples from Morgantown and Parkersburg, where shelters have plans in place to accommodate male victims, although the overwhelming number of domestic violence victims are women.
The board asks the state Supreme Court to reverse Stucky's decision and remand it with directions to dismiss the case.
Elizabeth Crawford, who is May's girlfriend and a domestic violence counselor in South Charleston, worries that type of decision would hurt West Virginia and a movement in other states that attempt to level the playing field between male and female victims.
"I hate anyone being treated differently for any reason," Crawford said.
The board's petition argues it has found "no evidence in the record -- none -- of any male victim ever being denied shelter by any Board-licensed program in the entire State."
The state Supreme Court unanimously agreed to hear the board's appeal.
.
.
.
W.Va. justices reverse shelter board ruling
Charleston Daily Mail (WV)
May 27, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
West Virginia's Family Protection Services Board has prevailed in a legal fight over its handling of domestic violence policies.
Thursday's unanimous ruling by the state Supreme Court reverses a 2009 Kanawha Circuit judge's order against the agency.
Judge Jim Stucky had sided with the group Men and Women Against Discrimination. It alleged gender bias and unfair practices.
The board provides funding and licensing standards for domestic violence shelters and family protection programs. It also oversees programs to treat abusers.
The justices ruled that Men and Women Against Discrimination had no legal standing to sue. But Thursday's ruling also rejects the group's challenge of three rules governing board policy. The Supreme Court affirmed each as reflecting the intent of the Legislature when it passed the state's Domestic Violence Act.
Global Aids Alliance Voices Its Strong Support for the International Violence Against Women Act
Violence against women and girls is both a cause and a consequence of HIV/AIDS
October 19, 2009
PR Newswire (USA)
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON -- On Wednesday, October 21 at 2:00 p.m. in Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2172, Chairman Delahunt (D-MA) of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight will hold a hearing titled "International Violence Against Women: Stories and Solutions."
The hearing will feature testimony from UNIFEM Goodwill Ambassador Nicole Kidman, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues Melanne Verveer, and other experts addressing violence against women worldwide. Immediately after the hearing, a media availability event will be held in Rayburn Room 2200 with Congressman Delahunt, Ms. Kidman, and others.
A statement from GAA follows:
"We congratulate Chairman Delahunt for his leadership and commitment to human rights," said Dr. Paul Zeitz, Executive Director of the Global AIDS Alliance (GAA) and a physician with experience working with people with HIV/AIDS in Africa, India and South America. "Violence against women is a universal issue, and U.S. work to end this scourge will not only galvanize the global health, women's, children's and human rights movements, but will help restore credibility to the United States through effective use of soft power," he said.
The Global AIDS Alliance encourages swift introduction and bipartisan passage of the International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA).
The I-VAWA will have a great impact on global HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment efforts. "Violence against women and girls is a cause and a consequence of HIV/AIDS," said Lisa Schechtman, GAA's Senior Policy Officer for Women. "Violence or fear of violence can prevent women from negotiating safe sex and from seeking health services or information, including HIV testing, care and treatment," said Schechtman. "We also know that men who are violent toward their intimate partners are more likely to have multiple sexual partners, which is one of the primary causes for the spread of HIV," she said.
The I-VAWA links strategically with other U.S. foreign assistance programs, especially PEPFAR (the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) which, according to Schechtman, "offers an opportunity for scale-up of coordinated, integrated responses to violence against women and girls that recognize the wide-ranging impact it has on the well-being of women, girls, their families and societies."
The I-VAWA is also one of the ways that we can protect our investment in global health through PEPFAR and other U.S. programs. "Unless we address global violence against women and girls, our multi-billion dollar fight against AIDS is sure to fail," said Zeitz.
SOURCE: Global AIDS Alliance
A bill that would help women worldwide
Daily Item, The (Lynn, MA)
Opinion
Author: BONNIE ERBE
October 22, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
A funny thing happened on the way to, or actually at the Democratic Women's Working Group in the U. S. House, which invited journalists in for breakfast this week. The breakfast, which consisted largely of coffee, was held in the otherwise elegant Speaker's Dining Room in the U. S. Capitol.
The topic was passage of the International Violence Against Women Act, also the focus of a congressional hearing on Wednesday that included testimony from actress Nicole Kidman (a. k. a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations Development Fund for Women.) I went to this event, as I have gone to so many others over the years, expecting to witness little by way of tangible progress for women. But while I was there I was reminded how much has changed and how women are starting to advance to positions of real power. They are using their newfound clout to make the world a better place for women not just here in the United States, but worldwide.
The act is a historic and unprecedented effort, as its sponsors say, to target and deter violence against women worldwide. It would spend $1 billion over five years in the 10 to 20-most female violence-prone nations in the world. The support would go to programs that prevent and respond to violence against women in developing nations.
In Afghanistan, for example, where little girls risk death, beatings or mutilation by acid for the mere act of attending school, violence against girls and women is rampant. One of the most oppressive legacies of the Taliban regime was to force every grown woman to wear a burka or face execution for violating the severe dress code. Rep.Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., who cochairs the Working Group, brought a burka with her to the breakfast.
She and other group members took a fact-finding tour of Afghanistan earlier this year.
It is one thing to see women shrouded in this huge, light blue amalgam of cloth on TV or online. It is quite another to see such a garment in person and imagine what life would be like if forced to wear one every minute outside one's home. The waves of blue fabric descend from a skullcap, that itself is covered. There is a small area of netted fabric from which women can peer out to a very limited view of the world. Afghani girls were and still are sold into marriage as early as 12 years of age. They must submit to statutory rape by their much older, often aged husbands.
Some of the money would go (if approved by Congress) to prevent the Taliban from forcing Afghani back into the servitude they endured until the United States attacked that country post-911. It would also be used to prevent use of rape as a weapon of war as it has been used in the Congo, Darfur and Guinea.
Some taxpayers may believe their hard-earned dollars could be better used elsewhere. But consider this: if the United States had stopped the Taliban and its parent organization, Al Qaeda before 9/ 11, wouldn't we be in a much better position today? The anti-violence act would never have become a viable bill if Nancy Pelosi were not House Speaker, or if Jan Schakowsky, Donna Edwards, D-Md., Nita Lowey, D-N. Y., and other women weren't supported by House leadership in their mission. They gain clout, too, from their association with a Secretary of State who's made quelling violence against women a core goal of U. S. policy.
Schakowsky told the story of how the Democratic House women marched over to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to demand an international treaty that condemns violence against women. This was some 15 years ago when that committee was chaired by then-Sen.
Jesse Helms, R-N. C. He had them escorted out by Capitol police and told them to sit down and, "act like ladies." Are we where we need to be? No.
Are we much closer than we were? My response is a resounding, "Yes." Bonnie Erbe is a TV host and writes this column for Scripps Howard Service.
Questions regarding VAWA dollars still unanswered
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Toni Collinson
October 22, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Domestic violence cases in the USA are growing every year, and are a large part of crime statistics. In 2006, approximately 5.7 million violent crimes were reported, over half of these being crimes against people that were known to the attacker (U.S Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)). It is thought that the majority of these crimes are domestic violence cases.
Domestic violence is not just about husbands hitting their wives. There is much more to it than that. It could be someone using the internet with the intent to make their spouse feel isolated and vulnerable, or emotional abuse. Domestic violence can cause disfigurement, emotional difficulties, and even death.
Survivors In Action is a non-profit organization, whose mission is to ensure that “No victim is left behind”. SIA advocates and provides assistance to victims of all crimes, including domestic violence. SIA currently does this with no public funding, when many organizations that focus primarily on domestic violence issues are known to turn victims away, stating that it is due to a lack of funding. SIA estimate that the number of people turned away is in the thousands, and have evidence that the organizations that turn victims away receive funding from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The funding given to these organizations does not always get pro-actively used to help women and children in need. Instead, this money is used to fund ‘administrative costs’, of which the organizations involved are not obliged to publish for public viewing. SIA has proof of this, all of which is published on the Survivors In Action website.
It is believed that the root of the problem is that there is no accountability for organizations receiving VAWA dollars. The government gives these organizations money to help victims of domestic crimes, but doesn’t require information back about how the funding has been spent. It is time, as a nation, to ensure that taxes are spent wisely, and exactly as you would intend them to be.
In order to bring about change, Survivors In Action is running a petition. The desired outcome of the petition is to ensure “All Domestic Violence Coalitions and Organizations to receive a Federal audit of funds received by grants and other means for the purpose of helping victims of Domestic Violence and what and where the funds are allocated for”. This way, the government will be able to ensure that the funds are being allocated where needed.
Schakowsky Testimony On International Violence Against Women Act
Government Press Releases (USA)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) News Release
October 23, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Prepared Statement of Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky
Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight Hearing on "International Violence Against Women: Stories and Solutions"
WASHINGTON, DC - Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-IL, delivered the following testimony before the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations and Oversight during the hearing, "International Violence Against Women: Stories and Solutions."
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today, and for your long-standing commitment to this issue. I appreciate the opportunity to testify.
Today's hearing is critical because it is too easy to dismiss violence against women as a product of cultural differences. Or as a byproduct of war. Or as a "women's issue."
The reality is that violence against women is a humanitarian tragedy, a vicious crime, a global health catastrophe, a social and economic impediment, and a threat to national security. Violence against women knows no borders, nor class, race, ethnicity, or religion. It is a truly global plague, affecting women and girls at all stages of life. The numbers speak for themselves: one in three women worldwide is beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused over the course of her lifetime. But the stories of individuals are even more powerful.
We could talk about Barbara, from Mexico, who was a volunteer working with street children when she was detained without charge and reportedly physically and sexually abused by Mexican police. Or Claudina, from Guatemala, a 19-year old student studying to become a lawyer, who's murder, despite evidence of rape, was not investigated. Or Shadi, from Iran, a women's rights activist who was beaten and abducted on her way to prayers.
You don't have to look far to find cases violence against women. FBI statistics show that there were 89,000 cases of reported rape here in the United States last year. While there is some evidence to suggest that women in developing countries face higher rates of abuse than those in developed nations, domestic violence is a leading cause of injury among women of reproductive age here in the United States as well as abroad.
However, women in conflict zones face a particularly desperate situation. According to Amnesty International, over 142,000 women have fled Darfur for neighboring Chad over the past six years. And while they ran from violence and rape in their homeland, thousands continue to face sexual violence as refugees. Not only do women risk rape and abuse every time they travel outside the camp to gather food, water, and firewood, but sexual violence also routinely occurs within the camps, despite the presence of UN security and humanitarian workers.
Take Aisha, a married, 26-year-old mother, who was raped and beaten while returning to her refugee camp. When asked about the attack nearly a year later, Aisha found it difficult to speak of her abuse and said she still faces vivid flashbacks. Or Fatima, a 20-year old mother, who was attacked while gathering wood. Fatima says she was not raped, but she did not want to talk about the attack in front of any member of her family, presumably because of the shame faced by survivors of sexual violence.
Aisha and Fatima are just two of the thousands of women who fled violence and abuse in Darfur only to face further attacks in Chad.
The situation is perhaps even more dire in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the systematic use of rape as a low-tech, low-cost weapon of warfare has become a defining characteristic of the long-standing conflict in the east. Rape is used to destroy communities and to instill a sense of despair and hopelessness within a population. Hundreds of thousands of women have been raped; in some villages, as many as 90% of the women have been raped. Patrick Cammaert, who served as UN force commander in the DRC, has said that it is "more dangerous to be a woman than to be a solder."
Since the most recent offensive began in January 2009, the situation has reportedly become even worse. This year alone, Oxfam has received 4,500 reported rape cases in the eastern DRC provinces of North and South Kivu, and this figure only represents those women who come forward. It is likely that thousands more are too afraid, or too ashamed, to tell their stories.
Last year, a number of survivors of rape in DRC broke through the silence and came forward, through UNICEF, to talk about what they have faced. One woman, Lumo Furaha, told about being gang raped by over 50 armed men. After nine surgeries, she has still not physically recovered, but she says she is hoping that telling her story will help her find what she calls "a brighter future."
Another woman, 50-year-old Zamuda, spoke out of hope that telling her story could prevent what happened to her from happening to others. She said, "I don't understand, the men did it with objects, it wasn't from any physical desire. The only answer I have is that they wanted to destroy me; to destroy my body and kill my spirit."
These are not just stories of individual women; they are stories of families, of communities, even entire countries facing endemic violence against women. My good friend, Jane Saks, co-directed a powerful photo exhibit called Congo/Women. One of the women featured in the exhibit, named Sarah, stated "The man had a gun and he had the power. I just wanted to survive." Sarah's world is one where violence is power. This is the reality for too many women throughout the world.
It is very hard to talk about these stories. But I think it is necessary. And it's not just DRC, Sudan, and Chad. A reported 500,000 women were raped in 1994 in Rwanda, and tens of thousands of rapes occurred during the warfare in Bosnia and Croatia. And the problem extends far beyond conflict zones: to Eastern Europe, where trafficking of women and girls remains prevalent; to regions in Africa, where an estimated 3 million girls are at risk of female genital mutilation every year, and to homes throughout the world, where women are beaten by members of their own families.
Many women throughout the world face sexual harassment and violence in their workplaces. The International Labor Rights Forum, which has surveyed women in Kenya, the Dominican Republic, Thailand, Ecuador, and Mexico, found that between 50 and 90% of women in these countries reported some form of sexual harassment in the workplace, even rape on the job. Women reported being threatened by supervisors to keep quiet if they want to keep their jobs.
Even after the horror of the initial attack, many women who survive sexual violence face further abuse from their own families and communities. Too often, the victim herself is blamed for the violent crime perpetrated against her. Even when not explicitly blamed, many women who survive rape and other sexual crimes are shunned by their families and cast out of their villages. Other women are too afraid to tell their stories, hiding the truth about their attack for fear of being stigmatized. Fear and cultural taboos against speaking about sexual violence often prevent women from seeking desperately needed medical treatment in the aftermath of an attack.
Beyond the immediate effects on the survivors, sexual violence affects entire communities. Studies show that sexual violence and the attached social stigma hinder the ability of women to fully participate in and contribute to their societies. Survivors of violence are less likely to hold jobs and are more likely to live in poverty than other women. One study, conducted in Nicaragua and cited by the World Health Organization, found that women who had been abused earned an average of 46% less than those who had not, even when controlling for other wage-affecting factors. Many survivors seek to avoid public places, including school and the workplace. There is evidence linking sexual harassment and violence to low female enrollment and high dropout rates from secondary schools.
Women, together with their families and communities, often must overcome devastating health consequences as a result of sexual violence. Women and girls who survive sexual violence face an increased risk of poor reproductive health and they are at risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDs.
In addition, women who have been sexually abused, particularly young girls who have been forced into early sexual activity, are more likely to develop complications during pregnancy, as well as serious health problems like obstetric fistula. The latter, a childbearing injury that may occur when emergency obstetric care is not available during childbirth, generally causes incontinence. Left unable to control her urine or feces, the woman is often abandoned by her family and community. Though obstetric fistula is both preventable and treatable, an estimated two million women remain untreated in the developing world and between 50,000 and 100,000 new cases occur every year.
Studies have linked abuse and rape to higher rates of serious psychological problems, including drug and alcohol abuse, nervous system disorders, and post-traumatic stress syndrome. UN statistics indicate that rape survivors are nine times more likely to attempt suicide than individuals who have not experienced sexual violence.
Mr. Chairman, U.S. leadership on this issue is critical. Two recent United Nations resolutions have made major strides toward a real recognition of this issue and linking sexual violence against women to international peace and security. Both Security Council Resolutions 1820 and 1888 were sponsored by the United States. These two resolutions represent a major step forward toward an international consensus that women's rights are human rights, and that the entire international community has a responsibility to address violations, wherever they occur.
There is also a growing international legal consensus surrounding the seriousness of using systematic sexual violence against women as a weapon of war. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) issued a series of landmark decisions, finding rape to be a crime against humanity and a tool of both genocide and torture. Further, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court codifies rape as both a crime against humanity and a war crime.
I commend the Obama Administration, and the leadership of Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Verveer, for clearly stating that fighting international violence against women will be a priority. The Secretary's recent trip to Goma, in the DRC, where she announced $17 million to assist survivors of sexual violence in the region, is an important statement of the Administration's commitment to addressing this issue.
Still, we need to do much more. I am proud to work with you, Mr. Chairman, on the International Violence Against Women Act, or IVAWA, which will soon be reintroduced. This unprecedented legislation firmly establishes the prevention of violence against women as a foreign policy priority, and requires the coordination, across our government, on integrating this goal into every aspect of our diplomatic and development policy.
IVAWA's approach is particularly groundbreaking because it takes a comprehensive, holistic approach toward the problem of violence against women. While there are already many programs that address specific facets of this international problem, IVAWA is crucial because it creates a central coordinating mechanism, linking all American efforts to combat international violence against women.
To be specific, IVAWA authorizes a multi-year, comprehensive strategy to prevent and respond to violence against women in a select number of targeted countries. The funding will cover a full spectrum of programs, including judicial reforms, health care, education, economic empowerment, and changing social norms. To ensure accountability, the legislation designates funding for research and evaluation of supported programs to determine the effectiveness of U.S. efforts.
In addition, IVAWA recognizes the particular dangers faced by women in conflict and post-conflict situations, and authorizes training for military and police forces operating in these dangerous zones to effectively address violence against women and girls.
Mr. Chairman, violence against women affects us all. As co-chair of the Women's Caucus I strongly feel that we must do more to help the women, throughout the world, whose lives have been forever altered by violence, and the families, communities, countries, even entire regions of the world that will never be stable, open, and prosperous so long as violence against women is perpetuated.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Demonstrators Press Sanders, Leahy, Welch on Congo Crisis
Seven Days (Burlington, VT)
October 23, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Does your computer look like this?
Probably not. But that hides the fact that so much blood in spilled on account of a precious mineral used to make computers, cellphones, game consoles and other gadgets we all use.
The mineral coltan is mined is the Democratic Republican of Congo and has fueled a brutal war there that's gone barely mentioned in the U.S. media since 1996. With more than 5 million dead, it may well be the deadliest conflict since World War II. Urgent action is needed to stop the killing, and Vermont's elected officials can play a crucial role.
That was the message Friday at a noontime rally organized by Friends of Congo, a group trying to raise awareness about a conflict that's destroyed a country and uses rape as a weapon of war. A few Congolese refugees joined students from UVM, St. Michael's and Champlain College, who towed wagons full of computer parts smeared with fake blood, on a march down Main Street and up Church Street.
"We're not asking anyone to stop using cellphones and computers," said Kate Bailey, a junior at St. Mike's. "We just want them to be aware that when they go into the Verizon store and buy a cellphone, there's a a connection to what's happening in Congo."
The crowd assembled at Sen. Patrick Leahy's office on Main Street before marching on Congressman Peter Welch's office down the hill. At both locations, they were met by well-dressed congressional staffers who offered praise for the protesters and cautious support for their platform.
When they arrived outside Sen. Bernie Sanders' office on Church Street, the demonstrators got a surprise. Bernie was there, and invited the students up for a chat.
"What's on your mind?" Sanders asked, seated at the head of a conference table in his second-floor office.
Cleophace Mukeba Kyendamina, a refugee who resettled from the Congo to Burlington, told Sanders that urgent action is needed to stop a genocide that is ripping apart his home country.
Trish Siplon, a political science professor at St. Michael's College who marched alongside some of her students, told Sanders there are important measures he could support. Among them:
* Cutting off financial aid, and military training support to Rwanda until that country's government stops funneling weapons, training and soldiers to armed groups in Congo
* Reintroduce the Extractive Industries Transparency Disclosure Act, a corporate responsibility bill aimed at mining companies
* And support the International Violence Against Women Act, which would incorporate antiviolence initiatives into U.S. foreign assistance programs.
"We're talking about five to six million people that have already died, and these specific issues are really pretty urgent," Siplon told Sanders. "We know that you're with us in spirit, we just really want to see you moving on of these specific targets."
Bernie's response: "We'll take a hard look at these and get back to you."
Sanders noted that he's doing several things to combat the Congo crisis. He is sponsoring bills to increase aid to women in developing countries, crack down on atrocities committed against civilians, provide humanitarian aid and monitor the mineral trade more closely.
Outside Leahy's office the mob chanted and held signs with slogans such as, "Leahy - Sign International Violence Against Women Act!"
Brian Boone, a junior political science major, held a sign that read, "Hey, Senator Leahy, Take a Stand! Justice in the Congo is What we Demand!"
"This war in the Congo has got to stop," said Boone. "Six million people have died for cellphones. Hopefully they'll listen to us."
Leahy's state director, Chuck Ross, came outside and defended Leahy's record on Congo. "This was an issue he was onto way before the rest of Congress were," Ross said. "The reason why the U.S. is funding some of the work it is, is because of his leadership on the Foreign Operations Committee."
When the mob arrived at Congressman Peter Welch's office a few minutes later, a staff aide was waiting outside to greet them. But when pressed on Welch's position on the topic, he came up empty.
"He's certainly very concerned, but I'm really not here to speak on his behalf," said congressional aide Jon Copanis, who promised the group that Welch himself would get back to them.
Trish Siplon was not impressed. She wants Vermont's leaders to take a hard stand — to hold hearings on Capitol Hill, stage press conferences, shine a bright light on the crisis.
"It's good to take leadership, but it only moves things if you take forceful leadership, and no one's doing that," Siplon said.
President Obama is not listening to the truth about the VAWA
Los Angeles Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Randi Rosen - LA Cyber Safety Examiner
October 27, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
As October comes to an end, Domestic Violence should be a daily awareness. I am disturbed at the fact that President Obama signed a proclamation (see below) that no victim of violence should ever be alone and should receive the services needed to be safe and just learning about it today.
President Obama is obviously shielded at the fact the Violence Against Women Act is failing. Victims are not getting the services they need, the very coalitions that are funded by the Violence Against Women Act are only tools for training and printing informative pamphlets to be handed out during crisis.
Lynn Rosenthal proved that when she told a victim, "she didn't have the capacity to help her and would "pass" it on to the powers that be." Survivors In Action, a national interactive victims of violence non-profit, receives countless emails daily on how organizations claiming to provide services are failing. Why won't the White House listen?
Health Insurance reform is needed, when these women are sent to the hospital after being beaten, children thrown out of windows by abusers are going to need hospital care. However, what happens when these women and children are sent home? Where are they going to go? What services are they really going to get? A printed pamphlet?
President Obama's proclamation:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release October 1, 2009
NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH, 2009- - - - - - -BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION
Domestic violence touches the lives of Americans of all ages, leaving a devastating impact on women, men, and children of every background and circumstance. A family's home becomes a place of fear, hopelessness, and desperation when a woman is battered by her partner, a child witnesses the abuse of a loved one, or a senior is victimized by family members.
Since the 1994 passage of the landmark Violence Against Women Act, championed bythen Senator Joe Biden, our Nation has strengthened its response to this crime and increased services for victims. Still, far too many women and families in this country and around the world areaffected by domestic violence. During National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, we recommit ourselves to ending violence within our homes, our communities, and our country.
To effectively respond to domestic violence, we must provide assistance and support that meets the immediate needs of victims. Facing social isolation, victims can find it difficult to protect themselves and their children. They require safe shelter and housing, medical care, access to justice, culturally specific services, and economic opportunity. The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act supports emergency shelters, crisis intervention programs, and community education about domestic violence.
In the best of economic times, victims worry about finding a job and housing, and providing for their children; these problems only intensify during periods of financial stress. That is why the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides $325 million for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA). This funding will supplement the Federal VAWA and VOCA dollars that flow to communities every year, and enable States, local governments, tribes, and victim service providers to retain and hire personnel that can serve victims and hold offenders accountable. These funds will also bring relief to victims seeking a safe place to live for themselves and their children.
Victims of violence often suffer in silence, not knowing where to turn, with little or no guidance and support. Sadly, this tragedy does not just affect adults. Even when children are not directly injured by violence, exposure to violence in the home can contribute to behavioral, social, and emotional problems. High school students who report having experienced physical violence in a dating relationship are more likely to use drugs and alcohol, are at greater risk of suicide, and may carry patterns of abuse into future relationships. Our efforts to address domestic violence must include these young victims.
During this month, we rededicate ourselves to breaking the cycle of violence. By providing young people with education about healthy relationships, and by changing attitudes that support violence, we recognize that domestic violence can be prevented.
We must build the capacity of our Nation's victims ervice providers to reach and serve those in need. We urge community leaders to raise awareness and bring attention to this quiet crisis. And across America, we encourage victims and their families to call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE. Together, we must ensure that, in America, no victim of domestic violence ever struggles alone.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 2009, as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. I ask all Americans to do their part toend domestic violence in this country by supporting their communities' efforts to assist victims in finding the help and healing they need.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.
BARACK OBAMA
Tell Senators to stop the civil rights travesty
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
Author/Byline: Trudy Schuett
October 29, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
RADAR ALERT: Tell Senators to Stop the Civil Rights Travesty!"Unless you have overwhelming evidence to the contrary, arrest the male."That's the grim reality in dozens of states with DV mandatory arrest and predominant aggressor policies on the books. These laws were passed thanks to the 1994 and 2000 versions of the Violence Against Women Act, which paid millions of $$$ to states to establish and enforce mandatory arrest policies.This week, we are asking you to take 5 minutes of your time to contact Senators Patrick Leahy and Jeff Sessions of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Tell them:
* Mandatory arrest laws are now responsible for the biggest roll-back in civil liberties since the Jim Crow era.
* State mandatory arrest laws were passed thanks to financial inducements in the 1994 and 2000 versions of the Violence Against Women Act.
* Even though the 2005 version of VAWA wisely shifted from a "mandatory" to a "pro" arrest position, not a single state has repealed its mandatory arrest policies.
* The 2010 reauthorization of VAWA needs to include strong financial incentives to states to repeal their unconstitutional mandatory arrest policies.
Here's the contact information:Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman: Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Telephone 202-224-4242 Fax 202-224-3479 Contact Webform http://leahy.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Ranking Minority Leader: Jeff Sessions (R-AL)Telephone 202-224-4124Fax 202-224-3149Contact Webform http://sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ConstituentServices.ContactMe
Even though the Fourth Amendment requires "probable cause" before an arrest can be made, the domestic violence industry delights in putting more and more people behind bars, no matter what the Constitution says! It's time to speak up for our rights and our civil liberties!
States with Mandatory Arrest for Alleged Assault:Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
States with Mandatory Arrest for Alleged Violation of a Restraining Order:Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence.
REP. SLAUGHTER CALLS FOR RESIGNATION OF STATE SEN. MONSERRATE
US Fed News (USA)
October 29, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 -- Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-N.Y. (28th CD), issued the following news release:
Congresswoman Louise Slaughter joined with state and national leaders in calling for the immediate resignation of State Senator Hiram Monserrate, who was convicted on October 15 of third-degree assault for attacking his girlfriend with a broken wine glass.
"As a coauthor of the Violence Against Women Act, I find it offensive that Sen. Monserrate has not already resigned, " Slaughter said. "Domestic violence is unacceptable from anyone, let alone from an elected official of the State of New York. Sen. Monserrate should resign immediately for this serious offense, and if he does not, he should be removed from office by the Senate."
Slaughter is a tireless advocate for women and women's health issues. She is a former co-chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus, and a major author of the Violence Against Women Act.
VAWA facilitates and funds illegal parental child abduction - part one
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
November 4, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
"I was a stay-at-home daddy. Then my wife illegally took our daughter Madison six states away" - Donald Tenn, Sacramento, CA
"I can't return to California because I fear my husband." - Shannon Phillips
"We've given Shannon Phillips thousands of dollars in (VAWA-funded) services. Donald Tenn is with Fathers 4 Justice, men who claim they are victims because they can't see their children. He is a huge danger. We all need to fear him." - Mary Hughes, DOVE
"I do not believe that Mr. Tenn is a danger. This father will be immediately reunited with his daughter and I am ordering his first visitation for 2 days from today." - Sacramento County, CA Judge Peter J. McBrien
"Shannon Phillips was the victim of ongoing abuse by Donald Tenn." - unnamed IL attorney
“I have grave concern over the truth and veracity of [Phillips,]" - Moultrie County, IL Judge Dan Flannel
I didn't enforce Tenn's visitation order in 2007 because it was illegal. Now I'm following the divorce order Phillips received that has visitation on hold." - Moultrie County State's Attorney Marvin Hansen
"My daughter was illegally abducted by her mother, but I am the one treated like a criminal. I told Madison I would always be there for her and protect her. But I've only been allowed to parent her during one 5-hour visit in the last 41 months. I know what truly is in Madison’s best interest. Both, fit and willing parents sharing equally in their child’s life." - Tenn
VAWA facilitated and funded the illegal abduction of Madison Tenn
Fathers 4 Justice daddy activist Donald Tenn opens up about his own child custody case as he faces 18 months in prison for an Ohio crane protest, in this exclusive three-part interview.
On May 25, 2006 Madison Tenn was illegally moved six states away from her Sacramento, California home by her mother, says dad Donald Tenn. Since that time Shannon Phillips has committed fraud and perjury in two states, wasted thousands of tax-payer dollars and kept a little girl from her loving, stay-at-home, primary caretaker daddy, he adds.
Tenn is speaking out about his own case he says, because he's facing 18 months in prison for a peaceful protest for parents rights. He wants people to know the truth; that he and Shannon were happily married, "We never had domestic problems. I'm not a violent person. I believe in communication. The police were never called to our home."
My wife told me she was taking Madison to visit her relatives in Illinois . After she arrived she said she wasn't coming back. She wanted me to follow her. I told her a decision like that should be made together. I asked her to come home and take six months to talk it over. She refused.
Tenn says a friend who is an Illinois real estate agent called and told him Phillips and her mother had been looking at houses for sale. Tenn explained to Phillips that she could stay in Illinois, but she needed to return Madison. He says she refused. What he did next, it seems, caused Phillips to set into motion the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) machinery that removes innocent parents, usually fathers, from the lives of their children.
I told her the law says she has to return Madison to California; that there are move-away laws that protect children from this sort of thing.
Tenn filed for an emergency ex-parte hearing. It was a Friday. By the Monday morning hearing Phillips had declared to people at WEAVE in CA and DOVE in IL, and attorney Tony Nevarez that she feared Tenn. Phillips was given a restraining order and returned to IL with Madison.
Wanting to keep their close bond, Tenn started sending Madison packages every few days with books, snacks, stickers and small toys. At first he was allowed phone conversations with Madison by Phillips and her mother Kathy Waseen, but that didn't last.
Fifteen months later, on October 19, 2007 Judge Peter J. McBrien had a hearing in Sacramento on Phillip's request to extend the restraining order. (case #06fl05871)
Judge McBrien stated that he did not believe Shannon. He chastised her for illegally removing Madison from California. He did not believe any of her testimony or renew the order. He told Shannon to come to an agreement on parenting time or he would make a ruling that she wouldn't like.
I wanted an equal parenting plan but agreed to every other weekend and 2 days a week. I remember Judge O'Brien said, 'This father will be immediately reunited with his daughter. I am ordering his first visitation for 2 days from today, Sunday the 21st of October.' He asked if I could be in Illinois on that date and I stated I certainly would be.
Tenn flew to Illinois and was at Phillip's mother Kathy Waseen's house in Bethany for the prearranged exchange. It didn't go smoothly.
Shannon kept pulling Madison away from me in order to instill fear in her, as if Madison should be concerned. Her mother Kathy Waseen interfered by taking Madison away from the car for as many as 10 minutes. Finally, I stated that this parenting time belonged to Madison and I and that we needed to go as our time was limited.
Then Phillips said something that no one expected from the woman who had claimed so much fear of Tenn that she couldn't return to California.
Shannon suggested that she come along with Madison and I and we all visit together. I was shocked. I told her that would not be possible.
What Phillips and Waseen didn't realize was that with two cameras rolling, Tenn got the entire incident on tape.
Franken, Grassley, Feinstein, Hatch Introduce Justice For Survivors Of Sexual Assault Act
Government Press Releases (USA)
November 5, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, DC - Today, U.S. Senators Al Franken (D-Minn.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.), and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced the Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act of 2009. The House companion bill will be introduced by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.).
The legislation will work to reduce the national backlog of over 180,000 untested rape kits currently in police storage. It will also address several other problems that work to deny justice to victims of sexual assault - including the denial of free rape kits to survivors of sexual assault and the shortage of trained health professionals capable of administering rape kit exams.
"These backlogs have serious consequences for law enforcement and public safety," said Sen. Franken. "We just learned of a case where a rapist struck both a pregnant woman and a minor while the rape kit for one of his earlier victims sat unprocessed at a crime lab. It takes about a week to process a DNA evidence sample and there is no reason that every rape kit completed should not be tested in a timely manner."
"It's unacceptable that rape kits sit around for months or even years while the perpetrators are still out on the streets potentially harming others. Victims deserve justice in a timely manner and our bill works to ensure that this back log is a thing of the past," Sen. Grassley said.
"The denial of a rape kit to a woman in any jurisdiction and for any reason is unacceptable," Sen. Feinstein said.
"I am proud to sponsor this critical legislation that will strengthen the Debbie Smith Act and provide grant incentives to law enforcement to clear their backlog of forensic samples," said Sen. Hatch. "The inventory of DNA samples waiting processing in our nation is nearly 200,000. This is simply unacceptable to victims of sexual assaults who deserve quick resolution of their cases. This bill will also provide much-needed assistance to rural and tribal communities in collecting and processing evidence from sexual assaults."
The Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act of 2009:
* Requires jurisdictions applying for federal funds to implement plans to halve rape kit backlogs in a two-year period.
* Creates monetary incentives for jurisdictions to reduce their rape kit backlogs, promptly process incoming rape kits, and report their backlog numbers.
* Creates an annual reporting mechanism for rape kit backlogs across the nation.
* Requires states to be responsible for the full, upfront cost of rape kit examinations. Victims should not have to pay for rape kits and seek reimbursement.
* Requires that health professionals notify victims that they have a right to a rape kit examination free of charge.
* Creates an additional funding stream for training of sexual assault forensic medical personnel examiners through the Grants to Encourage Arrest Program.
* Defines "trained examiner" in a way that will allow rural and tribal areas to use grant funds authorized under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to pay for admissible rape kits, even if they don't have certified Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners to perform them.
National supporters of this legislation include the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, RAINN (Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network), SOAR (Speaking Out About Rape), Human Rights Watch, National Network to End Domestic Violence, Family Violence Prevention Fund, Stop Family Violence, National Women's Law Center, National Health Law Program, Feminist Majority, NOW, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Research Center for Women and Families, National Council of Women's Organizations (NCWO), Women's Research & Education Institute (WREI), Wider Opportunities for Women, and the Equal Justice Society.
Minnesota groups supporting the legislation include the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, the Minnesota Indian Women's Sexual Assault Coalition, the Minnesota Nurses Association, the Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women, the Minnesota Indian Women's Resource Center, Advocates for Human Rights, the Domestic Abuse Project, Alexandra House, Breaking Free, Minnesota National Organization for Women, and the Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance/Legal Services Advocacy Project.
NCFM urges investigation into corruption at domestic violence agencies
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
November 5, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
In the wake of the finding by a West Virginia court that their Family Violence Prevention Services Board’s policies and procedures violated the state’s regulations on domestic violence programs, the National Coalition for Men has sent a letter to Jennifer Kaplan, an Assistant Attorney General assigned to the Office of Violence Against Women calling for investigation.
The three-page letter, dated November 4 states:
“The federal government must thoroughly investigate the Family Violence Prevention Services Board, affect corrective action, and ensure and enforce the gender neutrality requirement as a condition of providing continuing funding for domestic violence programs in West Virginia.”
In an e-mail interview, Harry Crouch, President of NCFM said, “We hope the letter helps educate others, puts on notice some of those involved in the reauthorization that others are watching, and challenges the Office of Violence Against Women to act judiciously and do their job to keep a clean house as directed by congressional mandates.”
Domestic violence programs in all states have historically focused only on female victims, with so-called “batterer’s programs” working under the presumption that abusers are exclusively male. With the passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, this approach was codified into law.
VAWA established a nationwide network of some 2000 programs including shelters for women, under the oversight of the OVW and agencies in each state. These agencies are most often called “coalitions,” and while they do not directly administer federal funding, have recommended the granting of funding.
The coalitions in each state require any shelter or program providing domestic violence shelter or services to be members of the coalition, and further require employees and volunteers of the programs to take training devised and provided by the coalitions. This training issue was the essence of the lawsuit filed in West Virginia, as an org wishing to provide equal services to both men and women was denied membership.
According to the NCFM letter, “The Board’s provincial awarding of contracts to a select few of ideologically acceptable service providers reeks of power and control cronyism.” While other federally-funded programs are mandated to provide fully equal services to all, regardless of gender, VAWA-based programs have managed to escape this requirement, claiming both a lack of need for equal services and insufficiency of funding to provide them, among other reasons.
Detractors have often maintained that objective research indicates the need to be about equal between the sexes, and that proper management of current programs would remove funding concerns. The shelter model itself, as well as other services, has been criticized as outdated and ineffective, with a harmful bias that has no basis in fact.
In recent years, both the coalitions and individual programs have made no secret of the fact of their aim to style the issue of domestic violence as a purely political issue. For example, the front page of the WVCADV website contains a quote from the late radical activist Susan Schechter, which says in part, "...I believe it is most urgent for this movement's future to declare that violence against women is a political problem, a question of power and domination, and not an individual, pathological, or deviant one.”
In September, a representative of a VAWA-funded educational org, Praxis International, made the statement, “I think I know a lot of men deserve to be beaten,” at a meeting of the members of the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
According to its website, “Praxis was organized in 1996 by activists in the battered women's movement to work with other social change activists seeking to end violence against women.”
VAWA was established in a day when much federal legislation was conceived and devised largely behind closed doors, with little public input. Its successive reauthorizations, which take place every five years, have received almost rubber-stamp approval, after Congressional hearings where only those in favor of VAWA, including employees of VAWA-funded programs and inexplicably – actresses with upcoming movies to promote – have been allowed to speak.
It would appear that the next reauthorization, scheduled for next year, will undergo an increased amount of public scrutiny. As Crouch remarked, “Because of the efforts of hundreds of organizations and thousands of individuals we should see some long overdue revisions in the 2010 version of VAWA, especially with respect to immigration fraud, misuse of funds, and expansion of provisions for male victims.”
Included in the letter as endorsing the NCFM request were the following agencies and individuals: A Voice for Men Family Rights And Many Ending Discrimination (FRAMED) Get Your Justice Live Men and Women Against Discrimination Men’s Defense Association Men's Health Australia, Greg Andresen Mens News Daily Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR) Washington Civil Rights Council Washington Shared Parenting
What is the Violence Against Women Act about?
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
Author/Byline: Trudy Schuett - Domestic Violence Examiner
November 7, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Yesterday, I noticed in my Google alerts the latest of a long line of hateful screeds directed at anyone who dares challenge the validity and/or usefulness of the Violence Against Women Act. In it, I found the usual litany of attack phrases about bullying and stupidity, not to mention the veiled accusations of criminal activity.
For the most part, I am fairly used to these, and not particularly distressed by them. They are much fewer these days, as the intended audience is much smaller, and in general more sophisticated in their choice of pundits and commentators.
For the most part, the only thing accomplished by these poorly-constructed condemnations of heresy is that the writer so often gives such a clear picture of her ignorance of the issues, and the opposition, while making no considered argument for the points she is attempting to make.
Sometimes – actually more frequently than one would expect – there is no point beyond, “these are bad people, and because I say so you should support VAWA and anything else I say is about ending domestic violence.”
Occasionally I’ll see criticism leveled at the anti-VAWA group for using some of the same arguments the pro-VAWA people use, and that’s always good for a (very) small bit of comic relief. I have yet to see any argument in favor of this particular piece of legislation that did not contain some level of hysteria, obscure logic, or prevarication. Radical feminists, of course have become proficient at all three over the years, because I believe that if the general public recognized the true essence and purpose of VAWA and its hundreds of associated laws, it would soon be as dead as today’s generation of fruit flies.
That’s not what I’m thinking about right now, however. There was something else that struck me about the particular work I read, something that has been nagging at me for some time. I wasn’t clear on exactly what that was, and so I looked back through the works of this individual, those on her blogroll, and then through the websites of some of the so-called “coalitions against domestic violence.” (I use the quotes because that is not essentially what these orgs are about.) Then I went through a few of the websites for shelter programs. It took many hours, but eventually that elusive “thing” began to emerge. Probably the reason it was so hard to pin down was the fact that this is an absence of something.
What is lacking in every single program, website, and written work I looked at is this: empathy. One could also view it as a lack of compassion. In all of the material, I saw not one word of concern for the unique individuals that make up the present and future clientele of these agencies. They were all very proactive; all about making somebody, whether it be a group or a person, do something the agencies want them to do. Even that “empowerment” business is really about substituting the presumed direction of the designated “batterer” for the direction of the program.
Never did I see anything about making a victim comfortable, allaying their fears, being responsive to the unique situations of people. Entirely forgotten in all the talk of power & control, advocacy, and community organizing is the human element; the recognition that no two people have the same situation – or the same opinions and reactions.
Wherever you look, there’s this cookie-cutter view of the issue, that when considered in the light of assisting families, of providing help, makes no sense whatsoever. There is no respect for the individuality of the human beings dealing with a human issue in these programs; neither is there any respect for the desires or choices of those human beings. My years of work in the field of social services and private charities tells me that this is about as wrong as it gets for an agency dealing with the problems of people in the community.
Respect for the individual and compassion for their trouble is paramount in other agencies, so much so that these concepts are often addressed in such things as formal mission statements. Not so for agencies that work with victims of domestic violence. For example, here is the first line of the mission statement for NCADV: “The Mission of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) is to organize for collective power by advancing transformative work, thinking and leadership of communities and individuals working to end the violence in our lives.” Their primary concern, then is “to organize for collective power.” If you read the whole thing, you find they’re all about leadership and laws and community, etc. There is absolutely nothing about recognition of the autonomy or independence of the individual. Of course, this is a national agency, so let’s look at what we find on the state level. (Please note, I’m including snippets only: links are provided to original material.)
The Delaware Coalition Against Domestic Violence is a statewide, non-profit organization of domestic violence agencies and individuals working to eliminate domestic violence through:
* Acting as an educational and informational resource to our member agencies and the community;
* Advocating for domestic violence concerns in Delaware;
* Providing a strong, unified statewide voice for victims of domestic violence and their children, domestic violence programs, and victim service providers.
AzCADV Mission Statement: To lead, to advocate, to educate, to collaborate, to end domestic violence in Arizona.
Nothing with respect to the individual there, either.
Let’s try local:
Sojourner Center in Phoenix has no Mission Statement, rather it has what they call an “Empowerment Philosophy,” Empowerment centers on the belief that women and children can break the cycle of domestic violence through supportive intervention because they posses [sic] the ability to make decisions that foster healthy, violence free relationships. This philosophy acknowledges a women’s [sic] competency and offers her support, resources, advocacy, information, and education, always striving to equalize power between a woman and her environment.
At first glance this seems encouraging, but then one realizes the language is frankly rather odd, and seems to contradict itself. If women and children “possess the ability to make decisions that foster healthy, violence free relationships,” then why do they need “empowerment” from this program? While I did note a graphic apparently representing some artwork at the shelter with the words, “tenderness,” and “understanding,” I found no recognition of these concepts elsewhere on the site. Their approach is exactly the same as other programs otherwise: divorce and relocation.
Cape Cod Center for Women To assist and support battered women and their children in leaving a violent environment and transitioning to independent living fully connected to a network of community support and with a lifelong safety plan.
I could go on and provide dozens more examples, but I think I’ve made the point here, which I’ll repeat: There is no respect for the individuality of the human beings dealing with a human issue in these programs; neither is there any respect for the desires or choices of those human beings. That is because they are not intended to be “helping” programs in the same way as food banks, literacy programs and the like. They are politically-oriented institutions designed to promote divorce and force women, willing or not, into the workplace. Some state coalitions are quite clear on their intentions. Right on their websites. The reality is that VAWA and its multiplicity of agencies are but one more vehicle to drive American society to a socialist state. Look at this article entitled, Marxism versus feminism - The class struggle and the emancipation of women from the Youth for International Socialism website.
...The conclusion must be that the oppression of women by men has always existed and therefore, presumably, will always exist. Marxism explains that this is not the case. It shows that, along with class society, private property and the state, the bourgeois family has not always existed, and that the oppression of women is only as old as the division of society into classes. Its abolition is therefore dependent on the abolition of classes, that is, on the socialist revolution. This does not mean that the oppression of women will automatically vanish when the proletariat takes power. The psychological heritage of class barbarism will finally be overcome when the social conditions are created for the establishment of real human relations between men and women. But unless and until the proletariat overthrows capitalism and lays the conditions for the achievement of a classless society, no genuine emancipation of women is possible.
That rather explains why the radical feminists just don’t seem to give up, doesn’t it? It’s strange, but if you read the whole thing (also other articles) you find the Marxists really don’t like feminists much. If you’re up on the history of feminism, you realize that they’ve tried to piggyback onto other movements and philosophies for quite some time, with varying results. Also consider this:
"To alter the position of woman at the root is possible only if all the conditions of social, family, and domestic existence are altered." (Trotsky, Women and the Family, p. 45.)
I really don’t know how much longer we can continue to allow ourselves to be so misled into thinking the political operatives in the VAWA milieu are concerned about either women’s safety or domestic violence. There has been no progress in the approach to domestic violence in 15 years of VAWA, and five or even 15 years more will find us in exactly the same position – providing ever more money to ineffective, biased, programs. The community organizers in charge have no motivation to change or improve anything, because it was never about domestic violence in the first place.
SEN. MIKULSKI ANNOUNCES SENATE PASSAGE OF BILL WITH HISTORIC FUNDING LEVELS FOR FEDERAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN PROGRAMS
US Fed News (USA)
November 9, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 -- The office of Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Md., issued the following press release:
Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) announced Senate passage of the fiscal year 2010 CJS Appropriations Bill. The funding bill provides a record $435 million in funding for the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Violence Against Women Office. This funding will support programs authorized through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which Senator Mikulski helped pass into law.
"When we fought for the Violence Against Women Act, it was not an unfunded mandate. I led the fight to put these programs in the federal law books, and I will continue to fight to put the funding they need in the federal checkbook," Chairwoman Mikulski said. "I have absolutely no tolerance for domestic violence. That's why I strongly support legislation and grant programs that help protect women and their families from continued violence and abuse, and gives them the tools they need to rebuild their lives."
Domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are crimes of epidemic proportions, exacting terrible costs on individual lives and our communities. Twenty-five percent of U.S. women report that they have been physically assaulted by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, one in six have been the victims of attempted or completed rape. The cost of domestic violence exceeds $5.8 billion each year.
The CJS bill funds multiple competitive grant programs that support training for police officers and prosecutors; state domestic violence and sexual assault coalition grants; rape prevention programs; national domestic violence hotlines; grants for battered women's shelters and transitional housing support services; victims of child abuse grants; and funding for counselors of rape victims during trials.
In the next step of the appropriations process, the House and Senate will work out the differences between their versions of the bill, which will then be approved a final time by both legislative bodies before being signed into law.
Domestic Violence and Divorce
Montrose Daily Press, The (CO)
November 12, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
In reading the article concerning Domestic Violence, it appeared that rights of the accused were being "tossed aside". It is clear, if researched, that there is more to this story than meets the eye. Although no one should be subjected to any kind of abuse, there are reasons why individual rights need to be protected.
Over one million false allegations of domestic violence are filed each year. These allegations often result in family break-up and the removal of children from their parents, according to a reports.
"A Culture of False Allegations: How VAWA Harms Families and Children" documents how the Violence Against Women Act defines "domestic violence" in broad terms. That has given rise to one million claims of domestic "violence" each year in which physical violence is not even alleged. Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, is on the record as saying, "Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply ... In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage."
"False allegations of domestic violence have become so widespread that lawyers now call them a legal 'slam-dunk,'" notes RADAR spokesman Ron Grignol.
Restraining orders are now seen as part of the "gamesmanship of divorce," according to a 2005 article in the Illinois Bar Journal. The RADAR report documents how these false allegations violate civil rights and harm families. As a result, children often lose daily contact with one of their parents.
The report was issued by RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting)
The truth about Domestic Violence
Philadelphia Examiner (PA)
Author/Byline: Tim McCown
November 25, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
If you have seen the ad campaigns that are designed to raise domestic violence awareness it would seem as if women are always the victims and men are always the perpetrator of domestic violence. For the first 18 years of my life I lived with violence nightly so I know domestic violence without having to read statistics.
Sometimes it was just a yelling and screaming match and sometimes it was a physical altercation and sometimes it was both. The one constant in all of this no matter who the target was, it was my mother, who started it. When I would attend workshops on domestic violence to make sense of it all my experience was denied because women were always the victims and men were the perpetrators.
I was sometimes labeled as an abuser myself because I had the misfortune and therefore the gender guilt of being male. I can remember thinking in college if I was the oppressor I must be the dumbest one on earth because many of the women I was supposedly oppressing were much higher on the economic totem pole than I was, which I found both ridiculous and laughable though domestic violence is never a joke.
The facts are much different than the politics of domestic violence. I say politics because I have become convinced that much of the who is the perpetrator and who is the victim debate is about millions of dollars in government grants instead of confronting what no matter who is at fault, and quite often it is a little of both, is like a domestic war zone. Growing up in a household with domestic violence will impact your entire lifetime and the quality of your relationships and abilities to trust others. That is the reality behind the politics and the effects are gender neutral no matter what anyone says.
The most famous of studies on domestic violence is one done by Murray A. Strauss entitled, Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. His study found that a woman is abused by her spouse once every 15 seconds. That said, his study also found that a man is abused by his spouse every 14 seconds. While this isn't about a competition it should give people cause to begin to ask questions about the domestic violence formulations we have including the Violence Against Women Act which codifies in law that domestic violence is a gender based crime.
Wendy McElroy wrote a a column entitled Domestic Violence: Behind the Stereotypes. She notes from a politically correct position the woman is always the victim and the man is always the perpetrator. They have gotten society to buy their stereotype as fact so that all of us tend to discount that battered husbands are anything more than an anomaly statistically. Of course the fault lies in accepting stereotypes as fact at all.
The underlying Feminist assumption has always been that women are oppressed by male power, societies institutions and marriage itself. The P.C. Stereotypes that have defined the issue of domestic violence are inadequate and certainly have no basis in fact for a good many persons who are victims of domestic abuse and violence. This stereotype harms male victims and same sex victims of domestic violence and women of color who certainly don't see the men in the Black community as exerting power
Linda G. Mills a professor of law and social work at New York University, notes even for many white women the feminist paradigm is overly simplistic. She points out that years of research show that when it comes to domestic violence or abuse seldom is the woman just a victim. Mills concluded that just like men, women are frequently aggressive in relationships.
Mills points out that there are at least 30 studies that do not contain self selective samples, such as all women at a battered women's shelter, that show that women assault male partners at almost an equal rate to men. What is true about women and domestic violence is that the woman is much more likely to be seriously injured.
There are hundreds of men killed each year by their partners. At least 1/4th of them have never used violence towards their homicidal partner. For a whole variety of reasons males never seem to be counted as other than perpetrators of violence.
Richard J. Gilles PhD. notes none of the nearly 1 billion dollars from the Violence Against Women Act is directed at either the study of or the treatment of male victims of domestic violence. The U.S. Justice Department guidelines states that research on male victims or programs for men will not even be reviewed. This is a clear violation of equal protection under the law but it is also instructive in how successful Feminists have been in defining the issue.
Gilles states that given the body of research it is way past time to amend and reframe domestic violence in other ways than as a gender based crime or an example of Patriarchal control. This tragedy will not be successfully understood let alone enable us to find solutions if we just continue protecting female victims while punishing just male perpetrators.
National Stalking Resource Center - does not help victims
Los Angeles Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Randi Rosen
November 25, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
More confusion about organizations receiving government tax dollars that claim to help victims, and fail. Below, Michelle Garcia (Executive Director of the National Stalking Resource Center), insists that Survivors in Action stop referring victims to her, as her organization is NOT for victims, but for law enforcement and professionals. Why is there a hotline number on the website? On the top of this website it actually reads “For Victim Assistance please call 1-800-FYI-CALL”.
Written by Alexis A. Moore - Survivors In Action/SIA
There are way too many organizations being funded by government tax dollars who do literally nothing to help victims of crime yet they are granted the “Lions Share” of the funding.
The reality for victims of domestic violence, rape, stalking and cyberstalking is not what is being portrayed by the media or by the organizations that receive millions in funding every year.
Survivors In Action received an email from Michelle Garcia the executive director of the National Stalking Resource Center requesting that Survivors In Action not refer victims to the agency because they are not a victim service provider. Confused, I visited the National Stalking Resource Center web site where it indicates that they do serve victims and for victims to call the hotline?
Are you Confused?
Me too, but needless to say this is the typical run around victims of domestic violence, cyberstalking and stalking deal with on a daily basis and this is unacceptable.
Many organizations that are receiving VAWA dollars, (your tax dollars) are wasting the money and not doing what is needed to help and assist victims.
VAWA (Violence Against Women Act)dollars are being wasted and victims are being left behind.
It is time for the organizations that do the work and actually support the victims to be allocated the funding so that “No Victim is Left Behind”.
Survivors In Action and others continue to push for DV Reform so that victims of abuse, rape and stalking receive the services that they need.
When will VP Biden listen?….
When will President Obama do more than sign a domestic violence proclamation?…
Appointing Lynn Rosenthal was a good start, however now is the time for the White House to do more than read our blogs and emails, it is time for action.
Every dollar wasted on a failing program is a dollar that could be allocated to a program and service that actually works to help victims.
Domestic violence (DV) victims continue to suffer and die at the hands of their abusers—and even one victim who suffers or one life that’s lost to domestic violence is way too many. Yet the victims of domestic violence and their children are not getting what they need from the organizations that have been established to help them. Quite simply, victims are falling through the cracks. In the United States and in the 21st century, there simply is no excuse for this.
The appointment of Lynn Rosenthal as White House Advisor on Violence Against Women (VAW) signals recognition on the part of the White House that the critical problem of domestic violence needs a higher profile. Ms. Rosenthal has the opportunity to spearhead real, effective change that will save lives and give victims renewed hope—if she provides strong leadership and uses her position to enforce accountability on the part of agencies that provide services to victims.
More specifically, what kinds of change should Ms. Rosenthal make? Here are the key steps I think she should take:
1) Implement uniform protocols and procedures in every state to ensure that every federally and state-funded domestic violence victim organization operates under the same standards—standards that ensure that victims are not turned away and get the help they need.
2) Appoint a liaison in each state that victims and their advocates can contact to voice concerns and complaints when victims are refused service or do not receive the assistance they need, as well as report positive experiences. The state liaison does not necessarily have to be a public official (such as California Domestic Violence Committee Chair Fiona Ma). It could be a representative of any one of the many non-profit organizations—such as Survivors in Action—or state coalitions willing to serve as a clearinghouse. Today’s technology permits many things to be accomplished quickly and effectively, making it possible for such a clearinghouse to begin operating rapidly and at minimal or even no cost.
3) Form a national oversight agency or committee, reporting to her, to which state DV agencies and resources would be accountable and would report what is and isn’t working, and to which state liaisons could escalate grievances that cannot be resolved at the state level.
4) Provide strong, effective leadership for the many non-profits, volunteers, and other individuals who are eager to bring about domestic violence resource reform. To be effective, all these resources need to be marshaled and organized. Lynn Rosenthal, along with an effective oversight committee, can provide that leadership and organization. I am happy to offer my services and those of Survivors In Action to serve as a liaison to the White House, help form an oversight committee, and organize the wealth of resources committed to this cause.
GLOBAL CAMPAIGN TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN BEGINS
US Fed News (USA)
November 26, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, Nov. 25 -- The U.S. Embassy issued the following press release:
As the world commemorates the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women on November 25, the United Nations is kicking off a "16 Days of Activism to End Violence Against Women" campaign where governments and civil society groups will work to raise awareness about gender violence.
"Violence against women and girls is a very serious global pandemic," said U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues Melanne Verveer in response to questions posed by America.gov Facebook fans. "It also has very serious consequences for the destabilization of societies because communities are decimated; the family is decimated."
According to the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), up to six out of 10 women experience physical and/or sexual violence in their lifetime. "We are recognizing - more and more, thankfully - that this is a very, very serious global problem and that we all have a responsibility to work to address it," Verveer said.
Women are subjected to violence in many forms. "The trafficking of girls, children and women - even some men - is one of the terrible problems that afflict our world. They are bought and sold like they were products and used for exploitation," Verveer said. "It is a very big problem in many places of the world. It is a modern-day version of slavery."
Verveer said countries need to have laws ensuring that those who perpetrate violence against women will be punished and to enforce those laws once enacted. The United States has the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), "which in many ways is a good model," she said. The law is based on what Verveer called "the three P's: Protection, Prevention and Prosecution."
The U.S. federal laws to combat trafficking of persons follow the same "three P's" model. The anti-trafficking laws help to prevent trafficking by increasing awareness through public outreach campaigns. The federal laws also provide resources to protect the victims and prosecute the perpetrators. Additionally, the Department of State's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons works with governments and organizations around the world to offer training programs, materials and funding for awareness campaigns.
"We help countries train their police and judges so that people who perpetrate these crimes are punished. ... First and foremost we have to deal with the problem of prevention. We have to make children aware," Verveer said. The office publishes an annual report on "what countries are doing or not doing that can be used by the citizens of those countries and governments to improve the situation," Verveer said.
In September, President Obama celebrated the 15th anniversary of VAWA by issuing a proclamation that called on "all men and women of all ages, communities, organizations, and all levels of governments, to work in collaboration to end violence against women."
"Far too many women in our communities and neighborhoods, and across the world, continue to suffer from violence. Inspired by the promise and achievement of the Violence Against Women Act, our nation stands united in its determination to end these crimes and help those in need," Obama said.
The United Nations, governments worldwide and civil society groups are working together to increase awareness. Groups such as the Man Up Campaign in the United States will "educate and create a discussion about gender-based violence through the use of hip-hop music and sports," said Verveer in her October 1 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. "Man Up will enlist young people at the World Cup in South Africa to commit to being long-term partners of the initiative," she added.
Many organizations worldwide have set up programs for the 16 Days of Activism campaign. For example, Prajna, a Chennai, India-based nongovernmental organization, will launch a series of events across that city and on the Internet. One of the activities, Burst Media Bubbles, has been launched on Prajna's blog. A group of media students will post links to media stories on gender-based violence. According to the site, the goal of this activity is to "generate opinion and debate on words, vocabulary and images that are already in the public domain."
Fans can also link to Rutgers University's "Official 16 Days of Activism" Facebook site to engage in a global dialogue related to eliminating violence against women.
A transcript of Verveer's question-and-answer session with Facebook fans is available on America.gov.
Her written testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is available from the State Department.
Violence Survivor Lobbies to Open VAWA's Books
Los Angeles Examiner (CA)
November 30, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
A survivor of domestic violence is speaking out about what she calls the lack of accountability for how public anti-violence money is allocated. In her own case, she says no public funding was available to help her when she needed it.
Alexis A. Moore, founder of Survivors in Action in Oakland, Calif., is trying to follow the federal money for preventing domestic violence.
Moore, a 30-year-old law school student in Sacramento, Calif., began to wonder where the money was going after she found herself personally needing it, but not getting it.
Roughly four years ago, Moore had been living with an abusive man who threatened her and her relatives, saying he would come after them if she ever tried to leave.
In planning her escape, she had been counting on a local shelter to house--and hide--her. "I was turned away from the then-El Dorado County Women's Center, only to learn later they had enough funding to serve me at my most dire time of need," Moore recently told Women's eNews.
Kelly Plag, director of community affairs with the Center for Violence-Free Relationships--formerly the El Dorado County Women's Center--said the center's funding is a matter of open record.
"We have specific grant requirements and we report to our grantors," Plag said. She added that they "have all the numbers."
However, these numbers are not available on their Web site and grantees are not required by law to post their budgets or audit results publicly.
Funding for Direct Assistance
Since the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994, the federal government has channeled over a billion dollars into organizations that are required to provide assistance to victims of domestic violence. The VAWA Web site does post figures on grants awarded to specific organizations and the amount of each grant, but does not detail how the funds are expected to be spent.
This year's grants from the Recovery Act funds, including STOP (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors), Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program and the Transitional Housing Awards, are listed and broken down by recipient organization. In Recovery Act funding, totaling $134 million, STOP, which funds the training of members of law enforcement, received $60 million; organizations in California and New York received $4,659,839 million for transitional housing; and funding for State Coalitions totaled $6,250,000.
Federal law requires each organization receiving government funding to complete a semi-annual progress report that includes the numbers of grant-funded staff, people trained and victims served. The numbers of those seeking services who were not served, demographic data on clients and services provided are also required.
The Muskie School of Public Service, at the University of Southern Maine in Portland, receives all VAWA required reports and disseminates them in the form of data reports and narrative summaries to Congress.
However, the reports do not link individual organizations with any specific figures. Instead, they provide overall figures per grant program, such as grants for reducing violent crimes on campuses or grants for education and technical assistance.
These VAWA reports are available online at the VAWA Measuring Effectiveness Initiative, which is run by the Muskie School. However, there is no documentation on a per-organization basis.
The key difference between the reporting called for by Moore and existing VAWA reporting requirements is organization-specific information. Moore also wants more public access to this kind of information, which is not required by VAWA.
Reporting requirements are not for the Muskie School to determine. It operates under a mandate by Congress. So it would take a signal from Congress for the school to start breaking down its reports into more specific performance audits and for grantees to publicly post this information on Web sites, where donors and clients alike could easily check it.
Survivors Share Similar Stories
Other survivors of abuse--Randi Rosen and Claudia Valenciana, two of the thousands of women involved with Survivors in Action--shared similar experiences with Women's eNews.
Both women report reaching out to the Coalition to End Family Violence in Oxnard, Calif. Rosen says her calls were not returned and Valenciana says she was denied assistance.
The Oxnard group's executive director, Laura Gonzales, told Women's that she was surprised by the stories and didn't understand how they happened. Gonzales said the group undergoes regular audits and reports to the VAWA Measuring Effectiveness Initiative on all government funding.
Gary Cunningham, Executive Director of Victim Protection in Colorado quotes, "these coalitions do nothing but get the big grants and do nothing for the victims, CCADV I was told is not for victims, they provide memberships and projects for education and training only, so much for that working for the victims, just another screw job for the victims and the government pays them for it, this director couldn't even tell me what VPI did or why we should be a member of the organization again, but it was all my fault for whining too much, what a great deal, I think we should start a coalition and get al the money we need and do nothing like they do, so far NCADV and CCADV is nothing but a joke and an expensive one at that. VPI may not be able to maintain helping victims, if these coalitions keep getting the funding for training, the training isn't working, victims are dying."
After President Barack Obama appointed Lynn Rosenthal to the newly created post of White House Advisor on Violence Against Women in June, Moore launched a petitioning effort that begins with an open letter to Rosenthal about the need to track public anti-violence funds.
The petition, on the Survivors in Action Web site, calls for auditing government grants. It also pushes for the creation of a federal committee to oversee government-funded groups and provide victims a public clearing house to document their experiences and file complaints.
The petition has close to 9000 signatures. Moore says that once she gathers 10,000 she plans to take the petition to Congress and begin a lobbying campaign for changes in the VAWA reporting mandate, as well as the creation of a national clearing house.
Services Denied By Some
The Survivors in Action Web site provides a list of organizations that have denied services to victims, including the National Domestic Violence Hotline.
At the Hotline, which receives 65 percent of its funding through federal grants, Retha Fielding, chief communications officer, said the group complies with rigorous auditing requirements.
"We just don't always have enough people to answer the phones," Fielding said, adding that the group received 255,047 calls in 2008 and was able to answer 212,216. In other words, 42,831 calls went unanswered.
Moore says her idea for a national clearing house for victims to report their experiences could help organizations, such as the national hotline, quantify the extent to which they can't keep up with service demand.
If organizations are unable to serve victims due to a lack of funding, keeping a public record of these cases could lead to more funding to meet the needs of victims, Moore says.
In cases where victims are unjustifiably denied services, the clearing house would provide donors and grant-makers--including the federal government--the ability to measure the effectiveness of service providers and base their funding decisions on actual experiences.
At a time when domestic violence funding across the board is being slashed under budget pressures, Moore admits her Web site might be consider ill-timed by service providers who are feeling hard-pressed.
"It's not easy speaking out," said Moore. "But I'm not here to make friends; I'm here to make sure no victim is ever left behind."
SEN. MIKULSKI ANNOUNCES FINAL SENATE PASSAGE OF HISTORIC FUNDING LEVELS FOR FEDERAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN PROGRAMS
US Fed News (USA)
December 17, 2009
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The office of Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Md., issued the following press release:
Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) today announced a critical step forward in putting $418.5 million in funding for programs administered by the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Violence Against Women Office in the federal checkbook.
These funds are included in the CJS Appropriations Bill, which was approved today by the Senate for a final time as part of Congress' Fiscal Year 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Bill. It now goes to the President to be signed into law.
"When we fought for the Violence Against Women Act, it was not an unfunded mandate. I led the fight to put these programs in the federal law books, and I will continue to fight to put the funding they need in the federal checkbook," Chairwoman Mikulski said. "I have absolutely no tolerance for domestic violence. That's why I strongly support legislation and grant programs that help protect women and their families from continued violence and abuse, and gives them the tools they need to rebuild their lives."
This funding will support programs authorized through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which Senator Mikulski helped pass into law. Six additional VAWA programs are administered by the Office of Justice Programs and funded at the same level as fiscal year 2009. This brings the total funding in fiscal year 2010 for VAWA programs to a record $444.5 million, a $29.5 million increase over last year.
Domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are crimes of epidemic proportions, exacting terrible costs on individual lives and our communities. Twenty-five percent of U.S. women report that they have been physically assaulted by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, one in six have been the victims of attempted or completed rape. The cost of domestic violence exceeds $5.8 billion each year.
The CJS bill funds multiple competitive grant programs that support training for police officers and prosecutors; state domestic violence and sexual assault coalition grants; rape prevention programs; national domestic violence hotlines; grants for battered women's shelters and transitional housing support services; victims of child abuse grants; and funding for counselors of rape victims during trials.
