 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
blackice
|
 |
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Examples of the erosion of men's rights include the little known fact that in the UK a man is now OFFICIALLY assumed GUILTY in a rape case in which sex can be proven to have occured. It matters not if the "victim" is your wife or girlfriend, it matters not if she gave her consent or if you can prove WHY she wishes to inflict a court case upon you - it is now up to YOU to PROVE consent.
Yes, you have to prove you are innocent.
In Canada feminists were able to push through a law entitled "The Violence Against Women Act" (VAWA). This law means that any women that you have simply dated, even if just the once, can literally pick up a phone, claim to be "in fear" of you and the anti-patriarchal state will, with no trial nor presumption of innocence, throw you in jail whilst all your assets are transferred into her name, including your home. You are then released under a restraining order to keep you away from "her" (your) own property. Breaking that restraining order is a criminal offence and you will be thrown back in jail for a long time. Any outstanding debts such as rent on your home or insurance, you are still required to pay. Remember she only has to "prove" that she's scared, no offence need occur, no witnesses, no evidence, nothing. |
I can go on quite endlessly in the last example is how most men are deprived of their children in family court matters.
Percieved or real you be the judge most of us (thousands actually that have formed groups  are fighting for rights most men obviously have no idea they have lost.
This example I posted here is just but one. As for not adheared to by most feminists yes your right but the feminist's changing these laws seem not to need "most feminist's" to do it as in the above examples.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:17
|
|
Blackice: I did a google search and found no reference to a Canadian Violence Against Women Act. There is some reference to an American law with that name.
Unless you can provide links with reference to the Canadian law, I will have to assume that your information is incorrect.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
VAWA in Canada is known as bill 117 enacted in 2000 do your homework.
http://home.golden.net/~sweb/abuse/pg6.html
quote:
Senator Anne Cools:
Honourable members, I would like to conclude by saying that Bill 117 seeks to deny women's violence. It cloaks women in innocence, and vests mere allegations of domestic violence with aspects of criminal findings, while it stealthily vests the accuser with new property entitlements and also new child custody and access entitlements. It then attempts, under the disguise of a prohibition, to vest the accuser with a potential immunity, by section 16, from prosecution for perjury. This extraordinary power is legislatively achieved by virtue of a novel judicial order call[ed] an intervention order, sometimes obtained without notice, which can then oust--the bill says "prevail," but in parliamentary language the term is "oust"--orders made under the Divorce Act, the Family Law Act and the Children's Law Reform Act. As I said before, such a judicial order, such a power, is unknown to the law in Canada. Further, no provincial statute can oust the Divorce Act. That is a jurisdictional question that was raised earlier.
This bill is a monumental foray into criminal law. Simultaneously, it lacks the protection of due process and the higher standard of the burden of proof required by criminal law. It lacks the protection owed to one accused of violence. Violence is clearly an offence in criminal law, not civil. In addition, by subsection 1(2), the definition of "domestic violence" is so broad, contrary to our constitutional framework, which usually requires that offences be defined precisely and narrowly. Further, subsection 1(3) tells us that on a balance of probabilities, a finding of domestic violence can be made without a criminal investigation, without a criminal finding or without a criminal test of credibility, and even sometimes without a police investigation.
Bill 117 is about criminal law and the consequential forfeiture of and the creation of new property rights. As a consequence of allegations of crime made and found without criminal due process, the ancient law of forfeiture is revived. An accused forfeits property rights and cedes them to an accuser. This legal scheme, as I said before, is unknown to constitutional governance in Canada. I think the committee and the Attorney General should exercise some pause and some caution and slow this bill down, receive counsel and find out exactly what is going on in this bill.
My worry about this bill is that it will not do very much to protect genuine victims who are in pain and anguish and who are suffering, and will do a lot to strengthen opportunities for what I would call unscrupulous individuals who will want to use the law in some unscrupulous way.
The heart of darkness, as I said before, that results in the twin tragedies of murder and suicide--and let us remember that suicide, after all, is self-murder--needs light. It really needs very serious study and needs a lot of light. I would submit to you that it needs no additional darkness.
I have spent my life working on this subject matter. I know a lot about domestic violence and I know a lot about human beings when they are wrapped in these conflicts, buttressed quite often by hosts of other entanglements and pathologies. I would also submit to you that there are many different forms of domestic violence. The most frightening and the most terrifying form of domestic violence is the one where, unfortunately, within all of these other conflicts, homicidal or suicidal impulses also come into play. I tell you, I mean it when I say this is the heart of darkness. I thank you. |
The conclusions of the passing of this act are horrific it has been used exactly as she predicted. The statistics also conclude that men have been the victim of this law endlessly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:17
|
|
Well this is certainly interesting.
Bill 117 is an Government of Ontario Bill. Anne Cools is a federal senator. So why is Cools making a speech in the Canadian senate about a bill being considered by the Ontario government?
For those of you who are not Canadian, provincial laws are created by provincial governments. The Canadian senate only addresses federal laws. So it is unlikely that Cools would be making a speech about Bill 117 because this bill is outside her jurisdiction.
I checked Senator Cools site and the speech listed by Blackice is not on the site. Very curious.
Here's a link for those interested in the Bill 117.
http://www.newswire.ca/government/o...0/19/c5062.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:17
|
|
Where's the link to her speech, Blackice?
Here's the link to Cools' website.
http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/acools/
Can anyone else find the speech. It was supposed to have been made in October 2000.
Look on the page listing Cools' speeches and there's nothing there. Curious, very curious.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
I'm actually getting tired of men whining.
|
 Yup, and what really bugs me is when people like Blackice try to distort the facts to make themselves look like victims.
Look at all the garbage Blackice has posted (some of it his own stuff, some of it is created by others). People are using lies to fan the flames of hatred against feminists and women.
He ridicules and minimalizes the real-life experience of my ex-girlfriend and then turns around and trys to use his experience as proof that he is an expert and to gain sympathy.
"MY REAL LIFE CASE and thousands of others do not add up to your I know a guy," he wrote. And then later "He "claims" a guy he knows."
He won't even acknowlege that I was talking about a woman.
Blackice wrote: "the legal systems have simply deprived men of a voice."
He then wrote that women win 87 per cent of custody cases in Ontario. That means that 13 per cent of men are winning custody cases so obviously, men are not being deprived of their voice.
He also posted an article that claims "In Canada feminists were able to push through a law entitled "The Violence Against Women Act" (VAWA)."
Yup, blame the evil feminists. Except that Blackice is then forced to admit that there is no Canadian law called VAWA.
He tries to get around this mistake by claiming "VAWA in Canada is known as bill 117"
In Canada, a "bill" is a proposed law. It has no effect on the courts or the police. A bill is not an act. These are two seperate things. Everything in that article posted by Blackice is false.
Blackice then claims that people "in the cause" refer to the Domestic Violence Protection Act as being VAWA. Yup, that makes a lot of sense. I suppose people in the "cause" refer to the Charter of Rights as the Environmental Protection Act.
He then posted up a speech that is supposedly from Senator Anne Cools. "The section I copied and pasted is indeed on that page," Blackice wrote.
But he refuses to provide any link and the speech cannot be found on her website. Another lie.
It is possible that a federal senator made a speech, apparently in parliament (given that it starts "honourable members"), about a proposed provincial law, but it seems unlikely.
Blackice has offered us nothing but lies and extremely questionable "articles." If this is the best that the "men's movement" can do then lets hope they go the way of the Aryan Nation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually men are incredibly discriminated in custody battles. Only 13% of them are won by men in Ontario? That is a staggeringly low figure, and indefensible. |
I can agree with that, but to say that men are being denied their voice, that's something different.
As well, what are the statistics from 20 years ago. Maybe things are actually improving. Then again, it could be getting worse.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:17
|
|
From Statistics Canada:
"In 1998, 21,448 divorce cases involved a custody order for dependent children, representing 31% of the total number of divorces granted. These orders covered 37,851 children. It should be noted, however, that in many cases not involving a custody order, residential arrangements are negotiated by parents outside of the divorce proceedings; therefore, care should be taken in interpreting these statistics as representing all outcomes for children involved in divorce.
Among cases with a custody order, custody was granted to the wife in 60% of these cases, far ahead of joint custody to both husband and wife (30%) or to the husband only (10%)."
That looks pretty unbalanced, but Blackice claimed that "89% of all men lose custody of their children."
He is obviously wrong, again. Only 60 per cent of men lose custody.
It is possible that he is using old statistics. If that is the case, then courts have become less willing to deprive men of custody and the scales are moving towards a more balanced state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Yup, and what really bugs me is when people like Blackice try to distort the facts to make themselves look like victims |
Distort until this thread you had no idea obviously now you are an expert and call facts distorted to which you have no clue...
quote:
Look at all the garbage Blackice has posted (some of it his own stuff, some of it is created by others). People are using lies to fan the flames of hatred against feminists and women |
Garbage,lies,hatred against women you are a mixed up little boy ...
quote:
He ridicules and minimalizes the real-life experience of my ex-girlfriend and then turns around and trys to use his experience as proof that he is an expert and to gain sympathy |
I ridiculded your ignorance and claims to be an expert based on one incident. Sympathy not awareness yes to the issues and to your obvious uninformed comments. Five years as I said studing this not some past relationship I believe I have somewhat  more experience than you have even tried to show.
quote:
He won't even acknowlege that I was talking about a woman |
My mistake I was tired at the time. You use this as an extention to what the facts? Something I have yet to see from you at all.
quote:
Blackice wrote: "the legal systems have simply deprived men of a voice." |
Being removed from your children and home without as much as proof of guilt you call this a voice?
quote:
He then wrote that women win 87 per cent of custody cases in Ontario. That means that 13 per cent of men are winning custody cases so obviously, men are not being deprived of their voice. |
You minimalize the obvious here 13% wow I guess that means the mass of men are what horrible Dads/ Do not have rights to access their children? I am sure you will come up with some reson to justify why Dads become visitors to thier own children.
quote:
He also posted an article that claims "In Canada feminists were able to push through a law entitled "The Violence Against Women Act" (VAWA)." |
Yes they did only feminists groups were their to point out thier views, no "mens groups" were heard at all. This is the same as the VAWA in everyway. Again do your homework.
quote:
Yup, blame the evil feminists. Except that Blackice is then forced to admit that there is no Canadian law called VAWA. |
Feminists used now proven distortion of the facts to push their agenda through.Admit what? I made clear my what I was talking about.
quote:
He tries to get around this mistake by claiming "VAWA in Canada is known as bill 117" |
Mistake? How many provinces have similar laws? You have not got a clue do you? They are all refered to as VAWA for many obvious reasons.
quote:
In Canada, a "bill" is a proposed law. It has no effect on the courts or the police. A bill is not an act. These are two seperate things. Everything in that article posted by Blackice is false. |
False heh you read so much The bill s4 is on the table and to be passed if not already. Why was this bill nessary again you read soooo much
quote:
Blackice then claims that people "in the cause" refer to the Domestic Violence Protection Act as being VAWA. Yup, that makes a lot of sense. |
They do not that you would know so far you prove you can debate an issue you know nothing about by quick reads... It makes total sense to someone that has looked at the issues longer an 2 hours, like yourself. Again the reason for calling it that is obvious...read.
quote:
He then posted up a speech that is supposedly from Senator Anne Cools. "The section I copied and pasted is indeed on that page," Blackice wrote. |
The link provided on top of that information is where it came from Amazingly it is the first thing on the page this shows how indepth your facts are you can not even follow a link and read. This is a perfect example of your "experience and knowledge" of the situation.
quote:
But he refuses to provide any link and the speech cannot be found on her website. Another lie.[q/]
again you show your true colors ignoring the link and calling someone a lier yet it is there...Anne Cools should be studied by you she is one of the few females in politics standing up for mens rights.
[q]Blackice has offered us nothing but lies and extremely questionable "articles." If this is the best that the "men's movement" can do then lets hope they go the way of the Aryan Nation |
Lies, "questionable articles" it is painfully obvious you know little of the situation let alone read any article...speaking of lies and halftruths you take that honor hands down. Heh I hope not your ignorance of facts shows you make it painfully clear we need these "fighters of men and childrens rights" How you can make such a moronic statement after showing a minute 10% of men have anything to do with thier own children sums up your involvement so far and your total ignorance of the facts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
From Statistics Canada:
"In 1998, 21,448 divorce cases involved a custody order for dependent children, representing 31% of the total number of divorces granted. These orders covered 37,851 children. It should be noted, however, that in many cases not involving a custody order, residential arrangements are negotiated by parents outside of the divorce proceedings; therefore, care should be taken in interpreting these statistics as representing all outcomes for children involved in divorce. |
You go on to ignore this misleading at best your final comment.
quote:
Among cases with a custody order, custody was granted to the wife in 60% of these cases, far ahead of joint custody to both husband and wife (30%) or to the husband only (10%)." |
Now study the facts this was 1998 near the begining of "joint custody facts" presented by "mens groups". Prior t that what was the facts? You have no idea. "joint custody laws" are relitively new in ordering them. In most cases the woman has the "primary residence and control of the child. The man has the right to see the child. So 60% to 10% oh that is good again 60% of all men with kids are bad fathers? or have no rights with their own children how could any sane person say this is good or just...
quote:
That looks pretty unbalanced, but Blackice claimed that "89% of all men lose custody of their children." |
Yes I do "joint custody" does not mean "custody" you once again simply show your ignorance here...you do that well it would appear we have be shown your true qualifications on this subject...let alone your major...
quote:
He is obviously wrong, again. Only 60 per cent of men lose custody |
Not wrong at all read some more maybe lets say in a few years you will understand what "custody" is..means...
quote:
It is possible that he is using old statistics. If that is the case, then courts have become less willing to deprive men of custody and the scales are moving towards a more balanced state. |
Old statistics are ones like what you pulled from a quick Google search...yes slowly as mens groups present the facts and women who are tired of the feminist mantra like Cools. They have made a huge difference to justice. Right now the norm is still in favor of the women the right to parent is a hot issue. Womens groups walk out of debates and hearings if mens groups show up to present thier side. That is common yet the reality is that until resently mens groups were not allowed to be represented.
The right of a parent to parent their child should be the right of any parent it is not that way and men are the "fall guys" Children have a right to their fathers this is what is motivating the change much to the dislike of the feminists. The rights of the child is being debated and motivating the courts to change this fact is being pushed by mens groups not feminists. "Shared parenting" is being fought tooth and nail by these feminist's.
Now that you have thread jacked the topic was, is the changes being sought by some feminists to the sexual harassment laws. My bet is you have not even read the topic and or done one of your simple Google searchs to claim the "expert" status and knowledge...
I bet you do not even know what PAS is your ability to debate is good. Your knowledge of the facts, and ignorance to them when staring you in the face on the other hand tells all... 10% nationaly wow that is justice, ayrians indeed 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:17
|
|
I have never said this of anyone within the Apolyton community, but I will say that Blackice is nothing but a baldface liar trying to create hate against women.
I've wondered sometimes if I have been too harsh on some of the Apolyton members, but I do not question my attitude towards Blackice. He claims to have studied this issue for five years, and yet in this thread, which he created, he has done nothing but print blatent lies.
Blackice is an idiot if he thinks he can get away with these lies. Apolyton consists of dozens of extremely intelligent and knowledge members (and probably an equal number of fools). If you try to post lies, those lies will be exposed.
I know this is quite a flame, but almost everything that Blackice has posted has been proven to be false. The one exception is Cools' speech. I cannot prove that she never said these words, but it is unlikely that a federal senator would comment on a provincial bill.
Spare us your lies Blackice.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-02-2002 08:01
That is quite obvious...
|