*Are Abuse Shelters Helping the True Victims of Domestic Violence?
*Domestic Violence-Related Immigration Fraud
*Incentives to Make False Allegations of Domestic Violence
*Poll: Most Don’t Want Violence Against Women Act
False Accusations of Sexual Harassment May Soar, SAVE Warns
*Leahy Bill Would Turn Every College Male into a Rape Suspect, Group Warns
They wish to make it harder for women to be protected from domestic violence and easier to claim charges are false! They are asking for a rollback of protections of women to the age of Jackie “To the Moon, Alice” Gleason!
OK, so you like to beat girls up, I can dig it. But to call your group “Stop Abusive Violence Environments,” that takes some balls made of brass!
The Violence Against Women Act contains a lot of provisions. As I udnerstand it, the main focus in this year’s debate about reauthorization revolved around two changes being made in the bill: extending its protections to same-sex couples and allowing illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas if they make claims of being battered.
I really don’t want to wade through that entire website, so maybe you can clear up a threshold question for me: does this group oppose the reauthorization on those grounds, other grounds, or what?
Again I’m not all that familar with the Act, but from my best understanding of it, it primarily provides grant and other funding to various programs designed to help women claiming to be the victims of violence. It does not – and cannot - change evidentiary standards for battery cases, because those cases arise under state law.
So if that’s their concern it sure seems to me that they are barking up the wrong tree. Nothing I know of in the Act will make it easier, or harder, for a lying bitch to set them up.
One of these programs seems (to hear them tell it) provide for a mandatory arrest of a man accused of beating a woman, even if the couple seems all lovey-dovey when the police arrive.
In New York State, the police can arrest someone if they believe the individual has committed domestic violence, whether the victim wishes to press charges or not. I think domestic violence is now a crime that is charged by the people, rather than an individual.
I for one welcome the Stop Anti-Violence Enitiative. It’s a cherished American value to be free to open up a can on someone of equal or lesser status as long as nothing designed or marketed as a deadly weapon is involved. Besides, many religions encourage beatings, so it’s an abridgment of religious freedom, too. Or maybe an infringement. I am not an edumacated man, so you can trust me.
Whoever the hell “SAVE” are- and their website offers virtually no information- it looks like truthiness is not among their priorities.
This press release characterized as US News & World Report “Debate Club” feature as a “poll”.
I guess it is, in broad terms, but it’s hardly what most people will be thinking of when the hear “poll”.
Most states already provide for mandatory arrest and detention in cases of suspected spousal battery. As Bricker notes, it’s got nothing to do with federal law.
ETA: the SPLC doesn’t seem to think much of SAVE either, for what it’s worth:
SAVE Services
I’d certainly want to see a cite for that, since those arrests are made under state law, and I can’t really picture how the Act would force state actors to behave.
I’m guessing they aren’t concerned enough with public image to pick a name that makes sense or is at least grammatically correct. “Abusive Violence”? Seriously? I’ve never heard of any groups called “Protect Traditional Straight Marriage” or “Stop the Baby-Killing Abortions”. Even the Aryan Nations has sense enough to not add redundant words to their name.
I’m guessing they just picked random words associated with domestic violence to get the SAVE acronym.
You can’t picture how a funding Act could change state policy? Really? Or are you hanging everything on the word ‘force’? I guess you’re right that no one forced states to adopt a 55 MPH speed limit or a universal 21-year-old minimum drinking age, etc. (and yes, this is not a highway bill), but it just seems … off … that you can’t really picture how the Act would force state actors to behave.
It doesn’t even have to be as strong-arm as the above. Putting a state politician in the position of voting against a state act that would receive federal funding and fall under the category of preventing domestic violence makes for a very secure bet (yes, there are exceptions to everything, but they are much more the exception).
Note, I’m not pointing to a provision as a cite; I’m merely reacting to the claim that you can’t picture etc., giving the impression that it’s not possible.
I can see a few reasons to vote against the act.
Creeping recognition of gay people as a particular class. Ewwww! The Gays!
The possibility for more brown people… brown women… brown child-bearing women to get an easier path to citizenship.
Empowerment to red people to bring an honest white person before a red-person court. Blech.
And the number one reason: Obama is for it. Therefore, it must be objected to.
…
Actually, the first one is worthy of debate. Where is the line between domestic violence and assault laws? From what I understand of the laws’ histories, a major underpinning factor is power imbalances. Initially, they were grounded in physical strengths and rights and privileges in general (i.e. men are stronger, had more property rights, and more income potential). As rights and opportunities became more balanced and recognition of women-batterers grew, the acts’ scopes expanded, but the main idea undperpinning the laws remained: domestic violence acts were necessary because of power imbalances.
Where is the imbalance between a gay couple? Not that abuse isn’t there, etc., just where is the need for supplementing the assault and battery laws?
The Man With The Golden Gun: The actual name for the group is Stop Abusive and Violent Environments. Their Pit-worthy doublespeak begins with their name and continues through all their materials. Fuckers.
Fair enough – I had not heard of the Act’s provisions actually doing this, though, so that was part of what formed my “can’t picture” comment – extended, I should have written, “Since I’ve not heard of the Act’s funding provisions being contingent on state arrest laws’ content, I can’t picture how the Act might accomplish this end.”
Not really. The police have faced a lot of these cases, and evaluate the evidence. Both parties may be arrested if there is evidence of violence and no clear perp/victim. Best bet is be the first one to call 911 and have the most injuries to avoid arrest.
No it makes perfect sense. They want to go after the real culprits: the environment in which the “so called” abused women live. After all those fist shaped bruises you see on their arms and face were really caused by accidentally falling down the stairs or running into a door. :rolleyes: