Great Britain Councillor Stands Against Stalinist Domestic Violence Program
By Shane Flait © 2011 

A British councillor, James Williams, won’t grovel as most of the cowardly male – and female – politicians do in the face of feminist-based totalitarian and anti-men legislation. He understands what legal protections a free society owes to every citizen and has the guts to speak up against policies that clearly violate those protections. Here’s what he fighting against.

Domestic violence programs have been set up in the United States for some 15 years.  They began with the passage of The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA). Their polices purport to support agencies to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The key is that billions of U.S. dollars are made available to implement VAWA procedures especially in police departments.

 

Unfortunately, the program reeks of feminist-instigated legislation that promotes only women as victims of domestic violence - as the Act says – with men clearly the abusers. The victim status assigned to women treats them as helpless and gives their claims precedence over a man’s claims or objections. The procedures for police to follow are clearly discriminatory to men, violate a man’s due process protection rights against unfair accusations, and punish him virtually at the allegation of abuse made by a woman. And abuse is defined with difficult or impossible standards of objectivity.

 

The money that government makes available under VAWA is so great that most receiving organizations and police departments don’t want to give it up, despite clear violations of citizens’ (men’s) rights to protective due process when accusations are made against them. The money turns recipients into a powerful lobby for more money and helps create propaganda promoting how much domestic violence is reduced –as defined by them- by such programs.

 

Powerful factions – including feminist organizations – make most politicians afraid to stand up against it. They’re afraid they may appear anti-women if they don’t speak in favour of the VAWA programs and will lose their positions.

 

But clearly, VAWA and its supported organizations use totalitarian powers to throw a man out of his house without the required due process to protect his rights against false accusations. Like all tyrannies, it professes that it works for a greater good – such the safety of women - than protecting the rights of citizens. It violates the maxim that the safety of the people cannot be judged but by the safety of every individual; and men are clearly not safe from this tyranny. They are assuredly victimized by it.

 

Domestic Violence programs taught women that they only need to say they are ‘in fear’ to immediately deprive a husband and father of his home and children. They’re virtually never held accountable for making false or trumped-up accusations. Women are encouraged to use trumped up accusations of abuse in divorce cases to easily deprive a father of custody of his children and to extort payments from him. Are we to be so blinded to human nature that we can ignore the importance of real due process?

 

The U.S. divorce and domestic violence industry carries enormous government-related benefits and thrives off depriving fathers of their constitutional rights and protections. Its success and power derives from asserting greater goods such as best interest of the child and safety of women than due process and individual rights. The industry, of course, heralds the efficacy of its programs – no matter what the real facts are or what rights it deprives.

 

U.S. Feminists have done their best to export this VAWA-type totalitarianism to other countries. Like all tyrannies, it clothes its policies in benevolent intentions while denying or playing down, the egregious violations of men’s rights as citizens.

 

Councillor Williams in response to his government’s implementation of such a domestic violence policy stated that as an elected Conservative councillor, he was ashamed Theresa May [proponent of the policy] agreed to adopt totalitarian methods in the ongoing war against men by the feminist movement.

 

He went on to say, “I shall not take part in any election campaign for the Conservatives outside my own ward until this vile sexist legislation is removed… This is a Stalinist policy and goes against everything I believe in as a Conservative…I am in the party because I believe in freedom and fairness, and this policy is the opposite…Domestic violence, both physical and emotional, is a very serious problem, but this policy gives police the power to act as judge and jury, kicking men out of their homes...What if a woman alleges domestic abuse even if none has happened? It's unfair that this policy will deprive men from seeing their children even if they've done nothing wrong.”

 

His opponents who wish to see first how effective the tyrannical domestic violence police policy will be at achieving safety for women before considering the denial of rights of men and fathers it will surely achieve – a clearly unsafe status. But they are wrong because¸ again, the safety of the people cannot be judged but by the safety of every individual.

 

Councillor Williams is to be applauded for standing up for the rights of all citizens and against a government tyranny spreading through his land. He is a statesman. 

 

 

End