NATASSIA writes:

I have written to you before on the topic of domestic violence and came across that old entry (September 2010) again today. I especially appreciated the wisdom of Jesse Powell’s comments, particularly his last one in that entry.

I have been facilitating for a Batterers Intervention and Prevention Program (BIPP) for nearly two years now, but I feel compelled to stop volunteering for this particular community program due to recent discoveries that give credence to the claims of a corrupt justice system. I also am disgusted with the Marxist feminism that has weaved it’s slimy way into everything in the domestic violence “industry.” I can’t attend a training seminar without being reminded of my inherent privilege due to my whiteness or heterosexuality or financial security.

As to corruption, it has come to my attention that a man (or woman) can be ordered to attend and pay for a BIPP class as part of the restraining order taken out against them by their partner (or ex-partner).

A possible scenario in my county is as follows:

A cohabiting couple fights. One partner, usually the woman, obtains a temporary restraining order from the magistrate. The other partner is forced to leave the premises, even if his name is on the deed.

A hearing is held in family court ten days later. Although it is a closed-door hearing, the ‘victim’ is permitted to bring a victim’s advocate. If the respondent (‘abuser’) cannot or will not attend, the hearing will be held regardless.

Based on the ‘evidence’ provided, the judge decides whether or not to award a final protective order that can be as long as one year. This order has significant bearing on consequent custody hearings if the couple has children together. As part of the FPO, a judge can “recommend” that the ‘abuser’ attend BIPP classes until the order expires. If the person fails to attend or fails to pay the weekly fee, he or she can be held in contempt of court. Although civil contempt may not incur the more serious penalties found in criminal court, it is still a punishment for not complying with the judge’s “recommendations.” (By the way, the word “recommend” is the very word used by the magistrate’s office, despite the fact that the government employee on the phone also explained that failure to comply would result in a contempt-of-court charge.)

Notice that nowhere in this scenario is a criminal charge or even a trial mentioned.

And so, a man in my class may very well be forced to attend without any respect for his inherent right to due process. I cannot stomach playing the role of a cog in such a machine. The protection of women is important, but so are basic Constitutionally-protected rights. No man should be forced to give up his basic human rights when he has not actually been found guilty of anything.

Now I wonder how many of those men complaining about the injustice in the system were telling the truth. I fear that I should be eating crow.

Laura writes:

To clarify for readers, the program Natassia discusses is funded under the Violence against Women’s Act (VAWA), which was passed in 1994 and provides almost a billion dollars annually to feminist re-education programs which have redefined “domestic violence” to mean almost any act a woman does not like. These programs promote feminist ideology, tutor women in divorce gamesmanship, and deprive men of their constitutional rights.

As Phyllis Schlafly and Suzanne Venker write in The Flipside of Feminism (2011):

Only five states define domestic violence in terms of overt physical actions that can be objectively proven or refuted in a court of law. The others use a definition that blurs the difference between violent action and run-of-the mill marital arguments. An American Bar Association report states: “Domestic violence does not necessarily involve domestic violence.”

Family court judges churn out two million restraining orders every year. According to Schlafly and Venker, half of these orders do not involve any evidence of physical assault.

Please follow and like us: