Friday, December 14, 2007

Canada - Problematic in pink

Problematic in pink
The Liberals’ new ‘Pink Book’ would encourage more bias against men

KAREN SELICK National Post

The Liberal Women’s Caucus — the 21 female Liberal MPs headed by Belinda Stronach, pictured, — is attempting to woo women voters with its recently released Pink Book, Volume II. The biggest headline-grabber of its many policy prescriptions was that the Divorce Act should be amended. This suggestion may make the Liberals lose as many male votes as they gain female votes. In fact, when the ramifications are explained to Canadian women, they too may find the proposals repugnant enough to reject.

Among the suggestions is to amend the Divorce Act to include “consideration of family violence in determining [child] custody.” Currently, the Divorce Act says more generally that the court “shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage as determined by reference to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child.” Additionally, “the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person unless the conduct is relevant to the ability of that person to act as a parent of a child.”

Do the members of the Liberal Women’s Caucus fancy themselves the only people wise enough to know that spouses shouldn’t assault other family members, and that doing so might traumatize their children or at least set a bad example for them? As a family-law practitioner for more than two decades, I have never seen a lawyer or judge suggest that evidence of a parent’s violence toward other members of his or her household would be irrelevant in determining custody arrangements.

In response to this, members of the Liberal Women’s Caucus might argue that it would do no harm to specifically direct the court’s attention to domestic violence, since courts are already considering it anyway.

I disagree. The impact of the proposed change would be subtle, but nevertheless real and harmful. It would elevate domestic violence to a new level of prominence in the minds of custody-seeking parents and litigious lawyers. It would encourage over-anxious or vindictive spouses to make spurious or inflated claims.

False allegations of violence are already a serious problem in family law. I have had numerous male clients report that their wives had threatened to concoct tales of violence, or to exaggerate minor i nci dents into something bigger. Some women even attempt to provoke their husbands into physical violence, taunting, “Go ahead, hit me,” as they stand with phone in hand, eager to call police.

There are men who fabricate, too, but in my experience, they are far fewer. Even men who have been genuinely assaulted by their wives are often so mortified by the experience that they prefer to conceal it.

Currently, Ontarians threaten to fabricate tales of violence most often for the purpose of getting their spouses to leave the house. That’s because Ontario’s Family Law Act specifically instructs the court to consider domestic violence in deciding whether to make an order barring someone from re-entering his home. Changing the Divorce Act’s custody provisions would give them just one more reason to lie and exaggerate about domestic violence.

The Liberal Women’s Caucus also proposes repealing subsection 16(10) of the Divorce Act. This provision currently requires the court to give children “as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the [child’s] best interests.” In deciding who gets custody, the court is required to consider the willingness of each parent to facilitate the other parent’s contact with the child. The language of the subsection is superficially gender-neutral But since most mothers end up getting custody, its practical effect is mostly to encourage women to permit visits from fathers.

This section, in my view, is a powerful force for good. Who could reasonably object to the notion that children need abundant contact with both parents? Who could think it’s bad to encourage parent-child relationships? The Liberal Women’s Caucus, apparently.

Has it never occurred to them that their proposals might become selffulfilling prophecies — that the more women treat men like violent brutes, the more frustrated and belligerent toward women men will become?

Let’s hope this grandstanding, vote-seeking proposal backfires on its Liberal authors.

Karen Selick practices law in Belleville, Ont.

“...But what about women's violence? If feminists (and the media) don't take women's violence seriously, why should men take women's opinions seriously? After all, according to ideological feminists' own definition of hate crimes, violence is merely an opinion acted out, a view expressed by behaviour”.

Jerry A. Boggs US Activist

“Male Matters”

Jeremy Swanson


Ottawa, Ontario

Phone: (613) 237-1320 ext 2438

"You Need to Join. You Need to Fight. You Need to Join to Fight"

No comments: