Response by the UK Men’s Movement to Safety and Justice, the Government’s proposals on Domestic Violence (pub. Home Office, June 2003)

Preliminary observations

This document and this "consultation" is predicated on prejudice, partiality, falsehood and misinformation. The very definition of "domestic violence" given is Orwellian double-speak, in that it includes behavior that is not domestic, nor violent. It specifically excludes much violence that occurs in the home, including the abuse of elders and children, both of which are primarily committed by women. (The NSPCC 2001 report by Patricia Cawson "Prevalence of Child Abuse in the UK" states categorically that women, in particular single mothers, commit the vast majority of child abuse in the UK- this is replicated in other works. It is clear from the outset that by it's definition of definition of domestic violence alone, this document and this consultation are dedicated to furthering the extreme feminist aim of demonising men, in particular fathers, and also this government's objective of total control. ( Although we criticise this government heavily, we would like at this point to emphasise our political neutrality-- previous governments have also advanced the misandry of the feminist advocates employed in the domestic abuse "industry" ). Misinformation and loaded language are commonplace throughout this consultation document: The language issue is not mere pedantry: there is a clear attempt to manipulate perceptions and emotions, for example, the word "victim" is often used in scenarios where the word "complainant" is the correct legal and factual term. To substitute "victim" where "complainant" should be used is clear evidence of, at best, sloppiness, at worst partiality and a lack of objectivity on the part of those who compiled this document. "Victims " are those who have actually suffered from a crime, "complainants" are those who are alleging that they have suffered from a crime. They may be truthful, mistaken, or criminally libelling another person. The use of "victim" predisposes the reader to accept that abuse has occurred, and that justice will be not be served unless a "perpetrator is brought to justice . The discriminatory intent of this document and suggested provisions are all too clear in the special attention devoted to homosexuals, lesbians and ethnic minorities. The document, without any embarrassment or attempt at justification, points out the relative paucity of refuges and facilities dedicated to male homosexuals and ethnic minority women, but completely ignores the total lack of refuges and bed -spaces for heterosexual men of any race.(P56, para 6) Whilst it acknowledges the cultural barriers for ethnic minorities in seeking assistance, it totally ignores the universal cultural difficulties for men seeking to admit, report or seek help in domestic violence situations. We are of the opinion that this government will pay little heed to any of the valid points we raise in this "con"-sultation, as they have no intention whatsoever of giving up a valuable weapon in their ideological battle to remove "father" from "the family".

Introduction:-

A disturbing feature of many changes to both the criminal and the civil law in recent years is that substantial changes are enacted without thought to underlying fundamental principles of justice but purely in order for the government to take action against some groups or groups whom they disfavour, or for the presumed benefit of some beneficiary group of Political Correctness. The present government, in particular, has shown itself all too willing to cast aside basic principles and procedural practices established over many centuries in order to pursue their own narrow short-term goals, for instance the reduction in the standards of proof necessary to proceed an allegation of rape from a rape complainant. Although many injustices have resulted from this policy, the monetary and social oncost of this is exacerbated by the fact that when such weak and/or spurious cases are put in front of a jury, they are rejected, ( This "no drop" procedure is in effect a built-in failure mechanism, which results in a lower conviction rate, which feminist advocacy groups then use to pressure the body politic for even lower standards. We are quite certain that both these Feminazis and their political sponsors are well aware of this, and cynically exploit it).

The consequences of such actions may be long-lasting. Also, in the process, much of the 'impartial‘ justice system, including the police service and the courts appears to becoming politicised. Governments do not last forever and the legacy of this politicisation of our institutions may come back to haunt its proponents when they themselves have fallen, as they inevitably will, from power.

The UK Men’s Movement is concerned about these changes, particularly as many of them damage men unduly. They also damage the fabric of our society.

This response has not been produced in the forlorn hope of affecting the proposals in question . It has been obvious for some time that there exists a cabal composed of politicians, senior civil servants ( Home Office especially) and key personnel in the media (with the once impartial BBC in the lead), allied to a set of academics working in the quasi- intellectual field of the social sciences who all subscribe to the same weltanschauung. This cabal is of such a nature as to form a realistic representation of what George Orwell described in his masterpiece, “ 1984”, as the essential prerequisite for a Big Brother society, namely the Inner Party.

We can see this within the present document where the Home Office is happy to quote so-called ‘research’ by academics who, far from being impartial, are key advocacy activists for feminist front organisations. The research they produce is sheer drivel, devoid of any academic merit and uses distorted and invalid methodologies. One of the few bleakly humorous activities in this field is to observe these parodies of serious academics quoting each other’s work feverishly in the belief that a host of cross-references from like-minded characters will give some spurious credence to their claims. The results these people produce have no connection with objective reality but , nonetheless, will be happily used by their sympathisers within the Home Office and Labour Party to provide some semblance of respectability and leverage to justify the new laws they wish to enact. Thus does the Inner Party proceed. The document above is filled with invalid claims and unworkable conclusions. This UKMM response will expose this nonsense whenever it occurs. ***

Critique of the text of “Safety and Justice” :-

page 9 para.9 bullet point 2

Quoting from Stanko’s research is clearly a mistake. The methods used by Stanko in her work are so flawed that no valid conclusions can be drawn. Stanko is a prominent feminist advocacy campaigner. She, therefore, cannot be regarded as an impartial researcher in any sense. It is instructive to analyse some of Stanko’s earlier work. She it was who produced the ‘1 in 4 women victims of domestic violence’ figure. Her methodology was as follows:-

Stanko interviewed women leaving GP surgeries in a deprived area in London, asking them about their experience of domestic violence.( She omitted to interview any men for some inexplicable reason). From these results, she came up with the ‘1 in 4 women’ figure. Some obvious problems exist here, although not so obvious as to stop the Home Office slavishly quoting her work,

People leaving a GP surgery are either injured or ill. They are not a representative section of the population. Extrapolation from this group to the populace as a whole will lead to statistical distortions . Asking only women is a twisted and sexist approach from the start. The area she chose is a severely deprived one. It has a higher level of anti-social behaviour across the full spectrum of activity. Thus, such figures cannot be extrapolated to the entire population. In addition, from past experience, the UKMM has no reason to believe that feminist advocates are in any way wedded to the truth, and few, if any, have any scruples about lying and falsifying "research" , or indeed from suppressing the truth with regard to female-initated violence against men, children and elders. This is compounded by the fact that many of them gain financial advantage ( jobs ) and social status (e.g. Professorships) -for maintaining the Feminazi myths of domestic violence. No-one with the slightest grasp of valid research methods could possibly accept Stanko’s figures here. Why then does the Government continue to quote her work?

*** Page 9 para.9 bullet point 5. ( some men are killed by their partners in self-defence)

This is a sexist and one-sided reference. It is equally possible for men to do the reverse with equal justification. How unsurprising that the Home Office does not mention this reverse possibility.

Page 9 para. 11 bullet point one. Obviously the effects of severe or persistent domestic violence may cause mental health problems. However, the claim that "50% or more" ( which is it, is it 50% , or is it more, yet another sly attempt to exaggerate) women in touch with mental health services "have had violent or abusive experiences" is presented as fact not as "have reported". Many people in touch with mental health services claim to be God, Hitler or Napoleon Bonaparte, and are not relied upon by the Government as reliable sources of information. In addition, the psycho-analysis techniques of many practitioners, are extremely suspect, riddled with feminist victimology, and have resulted in such abuses as False Memory Syndrome. This has been the (proven) implantation of "real" memories of abuse in very suggestible, mentally ill individuals. ( The former chairman of the Scottish National Party and his daughter were victims of this abuse from a somewhat suspect profession).

page 11 para. 19 bullet point 9

It has already been revealed just what ‘improving the law on homicide means’. Harriet Harman MP, the Solicitor General intends to make it easier for women to kill men in the home without being convicted and simultaneously intends to make it easier to convict men by removing the defence of provocation. As a piece of twisted sexist bigotry , her announcement to this effect is stunning. It proves beyond doubt that Harman is entirely unfit for high office and certainly unfit to be responsible for any aspect of the justice system which she is politicising as far as possible.

page 12 para. 23 bullet point 3

The concept of granting domestic violence victims anonymity is unworkable nonsense but, again, unsurprising from an administration which is in thrall to irrational feminist ideology. If , for example, a Mr. Harriet of 3, Harman Street is charged with domestic violence, it is beyond any logical thinking process to explain just how the identity of Mrs. Harriet, also of 3, Harman Street, can be kept anonymous.

This suggestion has a more deeply disturbing side to it, though. Women who complain of rape are already guaranteed anonymity, and this applies to both genuine and false complainers. The reason for this, so we were told, was that rape was such a humiliating crime that it would help the traumatised victims. Obviously, this rationale was not the real reason since the same feminist bandwagon is calling for anonymity for domestic violence, another crime where they expect that most of those protected will be female. It seems likely that being a victim of armed robbery, mugging , assault or attempted murder are equally traumatic. Indeed , any crime where a witness must give evidence is going to be traumatic. So why then is domestic violence being proposed as an addition to the sex offences anonymity provisions? This looks suspiciously like another attempt to offer one standard of treatment from the justice system for women and a much worse one for men.

page 14 Prevention

The list of initiatives here shows that the government’s strategy is a divisive and sexist one with specific assistance for women and none for men.

page 17 para. 7

The initiatives listed here are sexist in nature with the pro-feminist ( and entirely taxpayer-funded) BBC producing the ‘Hitting Home’ series which failed to display the reality of male victims of domestic violence.

page 28 para. 18 bullet point 3

This is another key strand of the feminist grand strategy. The use of unsubstantiated allegations of domestic violence to gain extra leverage for women in a civil case involving children. There should remain a clear separation of the civil and criminal legal system, which is a long-established principle.

page 28 para. 20.

‘Expert Witnesses’. This is yet another attempt to politicise the court procedure. ‘Expert witness’ is code speak for feminist advocacy campaigners whose sole purpose will be to twist the minds of the jury. This move must be resisted.

page 31 para. 30

‘Vulnerable and intimidated witnesses’

This attempt to categorise people alleging domestic violence as a special class of witness is misguided and unjustifiable.

page 33 para. 45

The continued move to remove any special status for marriage and family life is continued in these suggestions for same sex couples.

page 36 para. 60

The suggestion for a register of domestic violence offenders shows the same flawed thinking which is illustrated above.

page 37 para. 63

‘There is concern’. What this phrase means is that feminist advocacy groups have focused on this issue. There is no real concern and no need to amend the law in this regard.

page 37 para 64

It is indicative of the moral impoverishment of this Government that it should consider infidelity minimal provocation, and trivialise it. We are of the opinion that infidelity is a very serious and devastating occurrence for both men and women, and that it also shatters families, that the victims of infidelities know that their family may be seriously damaged as a result, and that infidelity is, and should remain, grounds for reduction to manslaughter. The onus should however, be upon the defence to prove that the individual charged was provoked substantially by the infidelity. We do not believe that this defence should be available to unmarried couples without children, as this would reflect the special value of marriage and children to society, i.e. couples without children, with no formal commitment to each other, have insufficient "social and emotional capital" invested in the relationship to "justify" reduction of a murder charge to manslaughter

page 37 para. 66

This section again shows the sexist bigotry which is endemic throughout this entire document. This bigotry raises serious questions over the fitness of the authors to conduct this consultation. The sentiments expressed in this section would equally fit those expressed by the family of a man murdered by his wife who then pled that she was suffering from abused woman syndrome ( a syndrome invented out of thin air by feminist advocacy campaigners). There have been too many cases where women have killed, then walked away scot-free. The authors of this section have not given any thought to this situation obviously. However, Harman’s legal twists will ensure that the number of these grieving families of murdered men will be increased by allowing women to murder with impunity. In Scotland, murderer Kim Galbraith shot dead her policeman husband, ( whom she had first asked to instruct her in the use of his hunting rifle), then burned the house down after concocting a story of robbery. The jury disbelieved her, and she was convicted of murder. In jail, she was put in touch with feminist advocate Dr.Mairead Taige, and she then became a "battered woman" . Taige gave "expert evidence" at her trial, but the jury, like her husband's parents, were not fooled. After a four- year campaign, and suitable instruction in "Battered Woman Syndrome". Galbraith had her conviction reduced to Culpable Homicide ( The Scottish equivalent of manslaughter). Constable Galbraith's parents were bitterly critical of the Court of Appeal's decision, as it robbed them of justice, and put their son's daughter back into the care of a murderer.

We are of the opinion that many "expert witnesses" have other agendas, and the court should place less reliance upon them. Other "expert" witnesses who have wrought havoc are Dr. Marietta Higgs, a feminist advocate who helped build the Cleveland "child abuse" empire based on false accusations of child abuse (the Lord Advocate has banned Procurators Fiscal from using Higgs in child abuse cases because of her ideological zealotry) and a professor who caused mothers to be convicted of murder in SIDS cases.

page 38 para. 76

The evidence quoted here cannot be regarded as reliable. Many spurious allegations are made in civil court to gain advantage. Interviewing women in a refuge is to take evidence from an unrepresentative highly partial self-selected group. Better and truly impartial figures are the only ones on which policy should be founded.

P 45, paras 15

The whole of this paragraph is founded on illogicality- -if a person is given residence in the UK on the basis of their relationship with someone already settled here, it follows that if that relationship breaks down, they have lost the basic factor that allowed them entry, ergo they should be deported. The only exception should be if there is issue from the marriage or partnership, as common humanity opposes the separation of parents and children. It is obvious from the concessions made by the Government in 1999 to complainants (n. b., "complainants" , not "victims") of domestic abuse, that there is a great inducement for individuals, usually women, to complain of domestic abuse. The standards of "proof" necessary to "justify" the right of these individuals to remain in the UK is risible: court orders may be made on allegation alone, without any proof. The culture of political correctness in refuges is such that a letter of support from any woman claiming to be a victim is guaranteed. A central ethos of Women's Aid is " We always believe the woman" . This is explicitly stated in their training literature and in their advertising material; it therefore follows that any woman asking for a letter of support will receive one. Given the dangers, hardship and sacrifice that many have endured to get into Britain, and the frauds, scams, and devious ploys and that prospective immigrants employ to remain in Soft-Tough UK, it is obvious that a complaint of domestic abuse is a very easy option to take.

page 55 para. 3

It should have been noted, but is not mentioned here, that a substantial level of domestic violence within the Asian community is woman-on-woman violence and is perpetrated by a groom’s female relatives on the bride.

Responses to Annex A Questions:-

1/ Employ some impartial researchers, i.e. no-one who is an activist campaigner should be employed. The aim is to conduct valid research on both men and women. Absolutely no-one who conducts themselves like Stanko.

2/ No . Perform valid research before doing anything else.

3/ This government has no interest furthering the truth regarding domestic violence. It is no where near as prevalent as DV "professionals" would have us believe. However, domestic violence is ugly, and it can be very upsetting and damaging for children to see two parents that they love receiving, or exchanging, blows or vicious verbal abuse. We hold that a prerequisite to teaching young people about the reality of domestic abuse is that first we much teach adults the reality of domestic abuse,a as opposed to the lies propagated by the Feminazi, government and media. What is essential to this is understanding that whilst there are , of course, men or women who are out-and-out victims of domestic violence, there are also men and women who are, in the words of Erin Pizzey, the founder of Women's Aid, those who are "victims of their addiction to violent relationships". Mrs. Pizzey wrote " of the first 100 women who came to my refuge in Chiswick, 62 were as violent as the men they had left" For stating this truth, Mrs. Pizzey was hounded out of the movement she had founded with her own money, by Feminazi ideologues who made money out of these women. Presuming that the government learns and acknowledges the truth behind domestic violence, we think that a gender-neutral advertising campaign, and the use of the arts ( cinema, drama and literature) are the proper way to do this in a democracy. State schools are for learning facts, not values, and attempts to introduce domestic abuse awareness into schools is neither desirable nor practical, being open to challenge under ECHR . One contributor to this response ( Mr. George McAulay) has claimed his rights under ECHR not to have his children subjected to the Zero Tolerance "Respect" programmed planned for Scotland.

Protocol One Article Two , ECHR "No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions."

Another rather obvious tactic to instruct young people about the unacceptability of domestic violence is to restore validity and respect to marriage and family life, since this is the most effective strategy to do this and benefit society as a whole.

4/ As above, but individuals who have a clear and gender-neutral understanding of the problem must first be found, and the proper facts, free of dogma must first be established before any dissemination is advisable.

5/ There are already plenty of agencies using taxpayers money to reach these groups.

6/ & 7 see 3/ above 8- it is the business of health practitioners to treat and to give advice on health problems, it is not their function to act as trawls for domestic violence victims, or to refer them to DV agencies who have more concern with achieving their socio-political objectives than they have helping victims of domestic violence.

9/ & 10/ Extensive campaigns already have been used except they have been highly sex discriminatory in nature.

11/ Civil and criminal law are distinct and for good reasons. Leave it alone!

12/ It is outrageous to suggest this draconian measure on the strength of unsubstantiated allegations untested in criminal court.In addition, even if the allegations are true, it does not follow that woman or man who has committed domestic violence against another adult is in any way disposed to committing it to a child. To deprive a child of a parent is cruel and unnecessary, and to deprive a parent who has no intention of hurting that child is equally cruel.

13/ This should only be done alongside accelerating access to justice across the entire range of civil and criminal cases. We are fearful of a scenario where the case of a woman being shoved in a domestic dispute, with no injury resulting, is brought to court before a case where a man (or less likely, a woman or child) is more gravely assaulted in a non-domestic case, or where a non-domestic case involving more serious injury is dropped due to pressure on CPS and the courts.

14/ This depends on the type of agency and how impartial they can be presumed to be in their policies and actions. Where injuries are not serious.

15/ These courts appear to be unnecessary, and driven by dogma.

16/ It is deeply mistaken to attempt to mix the civil and criminal procedures. This will lead, as is doubtless the hidden intention, to the same absurdities which are now plaguing the Canadian legal system.

17/ They will fail. There will be no ‘success’ in terms of delivering justice there may be "success" in delivering convictions.

18/ No.

19/ &20/ Reporting restrictions are a nonsense, an insult to open justice, and another step on the road to star chambers and secret courts, which are anathema to British justice.

21/ No, this is further deterioration of the value of family life.

22/ How could it be ‘domestic violence' if they do not cohabit? This is more Home Office nonsense following the ‘gaga’ advice of feminist campaigners.

23/ No.

24/ Why have them?

25/ Let people be adult enough to make up their own minds.

26/ - 30/ Leave system as it is at present.

31/ No comment.

32/ ‘Not enough evidence’ means ‘Not Guilty'. This practice of tinkering with basic principles of justice is disastrous.

33/ No, nonsense.

34/ No, complete nonsense.

37 If multi-agency reviews were objective, i.e. devoid of a dogmatic approach, without the appointment of partial "experts" (see Dr. Mairead Taige, above) - it could be helpful- for example they would establish that some women were murdering men and using the "abuse excuse" to justify murder, even when the courts have "bought it" . They may also discover the factors that act as "triggers" in homicides of spouses and/or children, (such as the manifest injustices within the family court system.) It follows that removing triggers will stop many homicides. This will be of benefit to men and women who are victims of domestic abuse.

38/ No. The entire family law system discriminates against fathers and needs a complete overhaul. The improvements needed are light years away from the views of the authors of this document.

39/ Start telling the truth, free from feminist dogma, about the true nature of domestic violence.

40/ No, but plenty of examples of bad practice, like women claiming to be victims of domestic violence to jump the housing queue, then settling in the "abusing" partner shortly thereafter. The UKMM provided names and details of this common scam to "THE GLASWEGIAN" newspaper four years ago, who ran a headline piece on it.

41/ -42/ No, there are no male refuges or support ; literature is illegally targeted to female complainants only, as are facilities in many instances.

43/ Very interesting question this one. Why do ‘male victims' come last after ‘ethnic minorities' and ‘LGBT’ ( around 1% of population. Men are almost 50% of the population yet the authors put them last. Why? This suggests that the mindset of the authors is far from impartial. The people in charge of this consultation need to be replaced urgently!

More support for MEN is needed,:there already is an adequate provision for women when compared to the actions for victims of other violent crime.

44/ Support stable two-parent married family life, i.e. reverse all anti-family Home Office policies over the last three decades. There, that is how to do it!

45/ This is pure gaga nonsense. ***

Conclusion

The entire tenor of this document is disturbing. The endemic partiality of the authors shows through the slant of the questions asked as well as the main body of the text. If the government uses the results of this consultation as justification to enact a law on domestic violence, then we predict confidently that any such law is going to further distort the justice system. It is a racing certainty that any new law will worsen the position of men in our society. We have considerable experience of the hysteria generated by the domestic abuse lobby being exploited to gain advantage in divorce or separation. Feminazi activist have consistently expanded the definitions of domestic abuse against women, and denied, ignored or trivialised domestic abuse against men. The domestic abuse cottage industry is run by, in the main, man-hating lesbian feminists. Women's Aid proudly boast that they are collectives, they used admit to being collectives run according to Marxist principles. They are not much concerned with the welfare of women, they are more concerned with removing the father from the family and destroying heterosexual marriages. They are the last people that any government should listen to when formulating policy, but we have little faith that the present government will do anything other than rubber-stamp their diktats.

We call on all those concerned with justice and true equality to oppose the government’s pans.