The Rights Of Man

DOES JUDGE ESMOND FAULKS THINK HUSBAND BEATERS SHOULD BE PARADED IN THE STREETS?

Judge Esmond Faulks believes that wife-beaters should be paraded in the streets and pelted with rotten vegetables. Not much argument there.

However, it is hard to imagine him saying the same if he was convicted a wife of beating her husband.

The comments in the Daily Mail article make the point.

FEMALE PERPETRATORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ARE NOT TREATED THE SAME AS MALE PERPETRATORS AS PATHETIC SENTENCING THIS WEEK SHOWS

Three stories this week have shown the sexist hypocrisy of the Government and other organisations (Equalities & Human Rights Commission, Fawcett Society et al) who deny there are significant numbers of male victims of domestic violence to be bothered doing anything to practically help or ensure they accept that victims are from both genders are supported. Never more so was this highlighted by the recent announcements on a strategy to End Violence Against Women and Girls, but not against men and boys. That's OK.

These issues also highlight the pathetic sentencing of women for cruel acts of domestic violence against men when if it was men carrying out the violence they rightly would have been sentenced for a lot longer. An issue raised on this site many a time.

The reason why this is important is that this week we have seen stories on:-

Thomas Cresswell's family receiving an apology from Jack Straw about the leniency showed to his killer Jane Andrews where she was allowed to be in an open prison such a short time (eight years) of a life sentence.

Terry Smith's attacker Alison Newman was sentenced to a sickenly bad two years (one in prison, one with a tag) for butchering him with a knife for five and a half hours. The judge states that she suffered from battered wife's syndrome (of which he denies) so was lenient but there is no evidence here that this was the case. Certainly nothing to say Terry Smith had been charged with it or been spoken to by the police. Look like the female judge took it at face value (coverage in Shields Gazette and Sunday Sun) and of course, will be used as a cause celebre for the disbelievers who think women cannot be violent. I would suggest the judgement is political because unless there is evidence, it cannot be said to be true.

Peter Hale's attacker, his wife Joanne Hale, got an abject six years for slitting his throat and stabbing him in the heart (coverage in The Sun, Telegraph and BBC).

These poor sentences are due to a number of factors.

Firstly, the judiciary as with all political parties, the establishment and multi-million pound domestic violence industry do not view or treat male victims of domestic violence in the same way as female victims. They know they cannot get away with such sentences if female were the victims, there would be one hell of backlash. They think male victims do not count.

Secondly, they can get away with passing such pathetic sentences because those mentioned above do not believe females can be this violent.

Lastly, because of three decades of social conditioning that only females can be victims of domestic violence, these sentences can be passed without comment by the media and others on how pathetic they are.

Update - Another article in Evening Chronicle shows that the judge is making it up when she says Newman was a battered women. No evidence. Read the comment from Terry3 on the newspaper's comments section. I would suggest that Terry Smith has probably been defamed by the judge.

Hattip - John Kimble

STORIES ROUND-UP

Sorry been busy but here are some recent stories worth cathcing up on:-

Times - Domestic violence against men rises 167% in Scotland

Daily Mail (the great Amanda Platell) - Women Bosses

Real Clear Politics (Cathy Young) - Tiger Woods, gender and domestic violence

Daily Mail - Love cheat texts and false allegations

Scotsman - Children should know men can be domestic violence victims too

Guardian - French Government gender equality plan

Salisbury Journal - More false alleagtions

Buxton Advertiser - Women only shortlist

GOVERNMENT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INITIATIVE PURPOSELY IGNORES MALE VICTIMS

The sickest irony of the Government's initiatives (including a ready reckoner, more to come in a later post) announced this week (entitled the Together We Can End Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy) is that it came in the same week as Jane Andrews who horrifically murdered her boyfriend had absconded briefly, a female teacher is jailed for having sex with a pupil and the Scotsman reported an increase in male victims in Scotland. 

What is clear (as if we did not know anyway) is that the Government is purposely and wilfully ignoring male victims. They do not even try to hide it as they have made it clear that the initiatives such as bringing education on domestic violence into schools is only to end domestic violence against women and girls not against men and boys as well. So men get told not to hit women, rightly so, but girls are not told to not to hit men. That is the true meaning of equality in the UK.

The deliberate decision to only use the "1 in 4 women will be a victim in their lifetime" figure and "two women per fortnight are murdered by a partner and or ex-partner" figure whilst ignoring the male figures of 1 in 6 men and two men per fortnight is shameful when the figures are from the same research. Sexism by omission.

Also, because so many people keep complaining to the BBC that when they publicise a DV story they only talk about it from a female victim perspective, Bill Turnbull, a presenter on BBC Breakfast, asked the Government Minister Alan Campbell MP about men on Wednesday. Attorney General Vera Baird repeats this on Women's Hour.

He asked him "Why does this initiative not include men because whenever we run a story like this, if men are not included, we get lots of complaints.". The Minister pathetically said "we decided that our priority was just on Women and Girls". Turnbull pushed him and Campbell basically said that as there were more female victims, this is where the priority was. Shameful, truly shameful and truly sexist.

If you are a male victim of domestic violence, this Government has made it clear, it does not care about you.

PETITION TO STOP THE SEXISM IN THE FAMILY COURTS

Dr Joel Robisnon of Familes Need fathers has submitted this e-petition to the Prime Minister:-

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to put an end to the demonization of separated fathers in the family law courts!.

ACPO REPORT IGNORES MALE VICTIMS BUT IS IT THEIR FAULT?

What is so worryingly predictable (issues of common law aside) about the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) recommendations to the Home Office was the lack of mention about male victims of domestic violence.

The proposals (5th down and beware may slow your computer) formed the ACPO response to the violence against Women and Girls strategy, a long-running Government consultation that completely and purposely ignores male victims of domestic violence and rape because those people don't matter. New powers were asked for such as a 'right to know' about violent men when a woman takes a new partner and a new criminal offence based on a body of evidence rather than a specific crime.

 Of course, any new powers will have to be applied to both female and male perpetrators and whilst the response only referred to women, what was noticeable was the gender neutral quotes given by Chief Constable Brian Moore who is in charge of this area for ACPO. The Guardian, Telegraph, BBC, Daily Mail (with debate) and others in their usual 'balanced' way only spun it about being against male perpetrators but Brian Moore seemed careful to avoid gender stereotyping too much (he does just mention women in the Telegraph). The politicians were happy of course just to mention female victims.

One wonders though that if the Government had asked ACPO to look at this not under the guise of Violence Against Women and CHildren but just under violence against people ina domestic relationship, whether the report would have mentioned men or would have been gender neutral. The impression is that with glacial recognition that men can also be victims, it may be the case that it would have been. Perhaps I am being too optimistic...

Pity of course, the Equalities Commission have no shame in just talking about female victims.

HIDDEN TABOO OF MALE VICTIMS OF FORCED MARRIAGE REVEALED

By Adrian Ashby and The Editor

In new guidance produced by the UK Department of Children Schools and Families on the prevalence of forced marriage within Britain's Asian community has revealed that 20% of victims are male.

The figures (see page 26 of the guidance) show that during 2008 there were 1,325 known cases out of 7,750.

In many ways, this is a similar position to the one that male victims of domestic violence find themselves in. It is under-reported and nearly all of the information provided is aimed at female victims.The stereotype is that only females can be victims and men cannot be.

 Though the Forced Marriage Unit and the excellent Karma Nirvana charity help men, it is clear from the figures that nothing much is being done on the ground in local councils to help. 

This can be seen by the sample of four council's involved in the research which shows that a mere 4% of victims they report are male but the Forced Marriage Unit reported 14% and Karma Nirvana reported 43% (the guidance has produced an estimate of 20% taking into account these statistics). It shows that nationally based support systems show a higher prevalence than those on the ground, which means local council's once again are ignoring male victims in their community and are in breach of the Gender Equality Duty.

Almost a re- run of the process by which Erin Pizzey’s pioneering work setting up refuges  was subverted by an ideology which refuses to recognise the need for support for a substantial number of men. Once again a pioneering woman, Jasvindher Sanghera of Karma Nirvana, responding to real human problems, shows up the prejudice of those who should be supporting people in need in their communities.

Thee one difference though is that whereas in the case of male victims of domestic violence, the perpetrators are nearly always female, in forced marriages, because of the patriarchal nature of Asian communities, it is likely that the men being forced into marriage are being forced by other men (male family members) within their community.

 

So the usual stereotype that only women can be victims has been proved here, as in the case of domestic violence, to be wrong. When will this Government stop putting domestic violence and now forced marriages under the remit of Stopping Violence against Women and Children and instead place it under the remit of Stopping Violence Against Everyone.

 

HEROIC VICTORY IN MIDDLESBROUGH, HARTLEPOOL AND SOUTH TYNESIDE - BUT WHY DID THEY HAVE TO FIGHT

This week, 300 heroic men won a test case at an employment tribunal in the North Eastern councils they work (Middlesbrough, Hartlepool and SouthTyneside). This has implications for 12,000 men across the UK.

The case was based on the fact that men and women working for these three councils had previously taken a case against these councils where they were not given bonuses for similar graded jobs to jobs mainly carried out by men (such as gardeners and refuse collectors).

However, whilst these women were rightly awarded a financial settlement or received tribunal awards after winning their case, the three council's employing these men refused to make payments to the men or change their terms and conditions. Pure unadulterated discrimination.

That meant they continued to receive not only less than other men, but also less than the women.

The men then lodged sex discrimination cases in addition to their equal pay claims. The tribunal upheld this, but the council's scandalously appealed, and lost.

The situation is well set out in the BBC and Teesside Gazette.

This test case, was a landmark victory for these men not just because of the decision but also because of what the Judge and lawyers said about it on the BBC:-

 Mr Justice Underhill said: "It would be surprising and unsatisfactory if the [Equal Pay] Act offered no remedy to men in a situation like the present. The case where men and women do the same job but receive different rates of pay is the paradigm of the kind of situation which the Act was intended to prevent, how would it seem if the roles were reversed and the 'piggyback' claimants were not men but women?"

Lawyers involved, from the Cloister Chambers, have described it as a landmark ruling which will have a bearing on many other cases, and could cost councils hundreds of millions of pounds.

After the ruling, Yvette Genn, a barrister who specialises in equal pay law with the chambers Cloisters, said: “This is an important decision as it demonstrates that equal pay laws can be applied not only by women who compare themselves with men, but also by men who are comparing themselves with better paid men.

“Even though women historically have received lower pay than their male counterparts, it is too often forgotten that the law applies equally to men as it does to women.”

It crucially shows that equalities legislation can be used by men and with decent legal teams they can win. The Judge alludes to the hypocrisy of discrimination against men because he is basically saying if it was the other way round, then there would be no dispute and that he would not have to make a decision as it would unlikely to have to go to court for a settlement to be reached. A sound judge.

The key issue though is why did the councils not pay up in the first place when the women won their case and why did the three council's could automatically assume that it was OK for them to pay just the women concerned and not automatically extend it to these 300 men.

They did so, because firstly they felt they could get away with it but importantly because they felt these men did not matter because they were men. These three councils clearly do not believe in equality and it is shameful that public authorities feel that it is right and proper to discriminate against them.

What about the male councillors on these local authorities, what did they do about this, did they think it was OK that male workers working for them were discriminated against?

These men are heroes whilst the male councillors and male senior executives who appealed this decision have behaved disgracefully, they are traitors.

Other Media Coverage - The Times, Personnel Today, People Management, Daily Mail

LEYTON MAN ATTACKS LACK OF HELP FOR MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

This week's Waltham Forest Guardian features an article on David Hyatt who said that not enough was being done to help male victims.

He spoke about the two of the main problems - he was too embarrassed to report it and when in a separate incident, his then ex-partner attacked him on a bus, the police arrested him. The latter is of no surprise.

An all too common experience but that at least are becoming publicised more.

FEMALE VIOLENCE FIGURES UNDERMINE MYTH THAT ONLY MEN ARE VIOLENT

The terribly sad story last week of model Danielle Lloyd being attacked by two women at a nightclub  brings into light the latest British Crime Survey figures that also emerged that showed that one in four violent attacks involve women. Women alone amounted to 13% whilst violence perpetrated by men and women together was 11%.

The key issues show that this worrying rise can no longer be swept under the carpet and the blame for violence can no longer be construed as being solely perpetrated by men. There are of course no known female perpetrator programmes so this will also need to be looked at and the question why not? raised.

As argued on this site, some of this violence will also be occurring in domestic relationships so the myth that domestic violence only affects female as victims will also be laid be rest.

In addition, there is no word from the Minister for Women, The Fawcett Society or others about this trend. Is it because they don't want to face the facts?

Media coverage - Telegraph