Author: Edward Bartlett

Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Australia

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 7, 2023

Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Australia

Domestic Abuse and Violence International Alliance

February 7, 2023

Seven population-based or large-scale surveys have examined the sex-specific prevalence of physical domestic violence in Australia. Studies with the strongest methodologies surveyed a large, random sample of the population, and asked about the occurrence of specific abusive behaviors, e.g., slap, shove, hit, etc., consistent with the Conflict Tactics Scale.[1]

The surveys were conducted among adolescents (Gibbon et al), university students (Straus), newlyweds (Halford et al), and the general adult population (Headey et al, Grande et al, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Ahmadabadi et al).

The following surveys found higher rates of male victimization or female perpetration:

Headey et al
Straus
Halford et al
Ahmadabadi et al (among persons currently in a relationship)
Gibbon et al

The following surveys found higher rates of female victimization or male perpetration:

Grande et al
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Ahmadabadi et al (among persons currently not in a relationship)

We conclude that overall, men and women in Australia experience domestic violence at similar rates. Summaries of each survey are shown below, in chronological order of year of publication:

Headey B, Scott D, & de Vaus D (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are women and men equally violent? Data from the International Social Science Survey/Australia 1996/1997 was examined. A sample of 1,643 subjects (804 men, 839 women) responded to questions about their experiences with domestic violence in the past 12 months, as assessed by responses to three questions about a slap, shake, or scratch; hit with fist or threw something; or kicked. Results reveal that 5.7 % of men and 3.7 % of women reported being victims of domestic assaults.[2]
Grande ED, Hickling J, Taylor, & Woollacott T (2003). Domestic violence in South Australia: A population survey of males and females. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 27(5), 543–550. A representative random sample of South Australian adults responded to items related intimate partner violence. Results reveal that 2.9 % of 2,596 men and 3.4 % of 2,884 women reported experiencing physical violence perpetrated by their partners.[3]
Straus M (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review 30 (252-275). As part of an international study of dating violence among students in 32 countries, Straus surveyed university students in Adelaide. Among the respondents, 20.2% admitted to pushing, grabbing, slapping, throwing something, twisting the arm or hair, punching, kicking, choking, slamming against a wall, beating up, burning, or using a knife or gun against their dating partner within the past year. These incidents were of the following type (Table 2):

Male-only: 14.0%
Female-only: 21.0%
Both violent: 64.9%

Halford W, Farrugia, C, Lizzio A, & Wilson K (2010). Relationship aggression, violence and self-regulation in Australian newlywed couples. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62(2), 82–92. A sample of 379 newlywed couples in Australia responded to a short version of the CTS. Results reveal that 22% of couples experienced a least one act of physical violence in the past year. Female perpetration of violence was more common that male perpetration. Authors report that in violence couples the more common pattern was for women to be violent (59%) followed by violence by both partners (34%) and least common was violence by men only (7%).^[4]
Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey (2017). A large, nationally representative survey inquired about persons’ experience of “violence.” The two components of physical violence are defined as:
1. Physical assault is any incident that involved the use of physical force with the intent to harm or frighten a person.
2. Physical threat is any attempt to inflict physical harm or a threat or suggestions of intent to inflict physical harm, which was made face-to-face and which the person believed was able and likely to be carried out. Excludes incidents of violence in which the threat was actually carried out.

Of all incidents committed by an intimate partner in the past year, 35% of victims were male and 65% female.[5]

Zohre Ahmadabadi, Jackob M. Najman, and Peter d’Abbs (2017). Gender Differences in Intimate Partner Violence in Current and Prior Relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36 (1-2). The sample consisted of 2,060 young adults (mean age = 30 years) who had participated in the 30-year follow-up of the Mater Hospital and University of Queensland Study of Pregnancy. Percentages of persons who had experienced physical abuse in the previous 12 months:[6]
1. Currently in a relationship: 12.0% of males and 5.9% of females
2. Not currently in a relationship: 22.6% of males and 27.2% of females

Gibbon KF, Meyer S, Boxall H, Maher J, Roberts S (2022). Adolescent family violence in Australia: A national study of prevalence, history of childhood victimisation and impacts. ANROWS conducted a national online survey of over 5,000 adolescents ages 16-20 regarding their abusive actions directed to family members. The survey found that 23% of females and 14% of males reported they had ever perpetrated some form of abuse against a family member (Table 2):

Physical violence — Males: 7%; Females: 11%
Verbal abuse — Males: 9%; Females: 17%
Emotional/psychological abuse – Males: 2%; Females: 6%

The age of onset among female adolescents tended to be earlier than male adolescents (Figure 1.5). The violence was directed to siblings (68%), mothers (51%), and fathers (37%).[7]

Citations:

[1] http://rzukausk.home.mruni.eu/wp-content/uploads/Conflict-Tactics-Scale.pdf

[2] http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm

[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14651403/

[4]https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00049530902804169

[5] https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/personal-safety-australia/latest-release

[6] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0886260517730563

[7] https://anrowsdev.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/RP.20.03-RR1_FitzGibbon-AFVinAus.pdf

CONSEQUENCES OF THE LAW OF GENDER VIOLENCE AND GENDER IDEOLOGY IN SPAIN

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 6, 2023

CONSEQUENCES OF THE LAW OF GENDER VIOLENCE AND GENDER IDEOLOGY IN SPAIN

D. Jesús Muñoz

Dª María Legaz

National Association for Assistance to Victims of Domestic Violence (Asociacion Nacional de Ayuda a Victimas de Ayuda de Violencia Doméstica)

24 January 2023

The passage of the LIVG, the comprehensive law against gender-based violence, in Spain in 2004 has led to the violation of the fundamental rights of all heterosexual citizens, especially loss of the “presumption of innocence.”

The socialist party, from which this ideology of copyright criminal law
originated, had on the table, according to public statements by one of its proponents, safeguarding the protection of victims or the presumption of innocence. They opted for the protection of victims, destroying the “presumption of innocence” for hundreds of thousands of men in the past 18 years.

The gender violence law is based on the study of the Minneapolis mandatory arrest law.

From 2004 to 2022, there have been more than 2,260,000 judicial
proceedings, with more than 1,705,000 defendants ending up being declared innocent. This means that innocent people have been prosecuted with public money, depriving them of their liberty. By applying Article 544 TER of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal, they have been separated from their children, with jail detentions of 24 and 72 hours. These detentions normally take place on weekends, beginning on Fridays, so the man spends the whole weekend in a jail with deplorable hygienic conditions. The man is in a state of shock, not knowing why he has been deprived of liberty, expelled from his house with only what he was wearing. and deprived of his children’s visitation regime.

An average of more than 455 men are arrested every day in Spain for allegations of gender violence, based solely on the word of a woman. An average of 160,000 men are prosecuted each year as terrorists. Year after year, it has been shown that more than 80% of them, who have been deprived of their liberty, are declared innocent, according to data from the General Council of the Judiciary.

Hundreds of billions of euros are spent in Spain, coming from the European Union, squandered by political parties. As an example, between 2014 and 2016 the Junta de Andalucía spent a whopping sum of more than of 66,000 millions of euros.

The European Union allocates €366 billion a year to addressing gender violence. None of these grants are audited.

An estimation of the costs of gender violence in the EU, according to a study carried out by the United Kingdom, estimated that Spain received from more than 24,000 million euros in 2012. With these funds, networks of feminist associations related to political parties have been created, which obtain economic revenue through their gender ideology.

The Spanish gender violence law is based on author’s criminal law, as
stated on page 92 and 93 of the CGPJ’s, LIVG draft report and
Constitutional Court Judgment 59/2008, dated July 4. The Particular
vote of five magistrates, including Judge Jorge Rodríguez Zapata, states
in writing, on folio 25 of the sentences, that this law would make the
dreams of Edmund Mezger, German jurist from Nazi Germany, come true.

He writes in the seventh paragraph:

“Finally, I express my wish that this Judgment not to be the
beginning in our order of the fulfillment of Mezger’s dream: two
Criminal Laws; a criminal law for the generality, in which, in essence, the principles that have governed up to now will remain in force. And, along with it, a completely different criminal law, for special groups of certain people. I leave a record of my position in this Vote.
In Madrid, on May fourteenth, two thousand and eight. Jorge
Rodriguez Zapata Perez. -Signed”.

In addition to this, a renowned member of the Socialist party and expresident of the Spanish Government, Alfonso Guerra, publicly declared that he spoke with an acquaintance of his, who had been the president of the Constitutional Court in 2004, who confirmed to him that the seven magistrates who approved the unconstitutional law, that they did so under pressure from feminist lobbies, and from the socialist party of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero:

Alfonso Guerra reveals the pressure on the TC on the LIVG.

In Spain we are suffering from what Poland and Hungary already warned about, which is why they withdrew from the Istanbul Agreement.

If we add to this, that the socialist government subsidized women’s allegations with public money, since the higher the number of allegations, the more women are declared mistreated and the more
money the feminist associations receive. So says the BOE of 2005, Number 215 on page 30453.

Currently, in addition to all of the overhead, a lot of women in a divorce or children custody proceeding, profit from Articles 92.7 and 94 of the Civil Code. These women use the gender violence law so that fathers cannot fight for joint child custody. And with article 94, during the investigation and judicial process, the man is deprived of child visitation rights, despite the fact that 80% of them are eventually declared to be innocent. You can imagine the ordeal they suffer, when one to five years can pass without being able to see their children.

ANAVID asks that all of these discriminatory laws, which violate constitutional, fundamental and human rights, be repealed. These laws are destroying the lives of men, children, and entire families, and are not protecting the truly mistreated women. We demand laws that protect and punish all people equally, regardless of sex, age, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

Furthermore, we ask that any person declared innocent, that had been
deprived of their liberty to be compensated with €600 per day and for
those who have suffered a restraining order being found innocent, we ask for a compensation of €110 per day.

Note: The original Spanish version of this statement is available on the ANAVID website.

Bills Gender Agenda

Twelve States Have Introduced Bills to Affirm Parental Rights. More Bills Are Expected.

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 5, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Twelve States Have Introduced Bills to Affirm Parental Rights. More Bills Are Expected.

WASHINGTON / February 6, 2023 – Following reports of secretive school policies that marginalize and exclude parents, parental rights has become a hot-button issue across the United States (1). For example, the New York Times recently published an article highlighting the concerns of parents who were kept in the dark about their child’s gender dilemmas (2).

In response, 12 states have introduced bills in the past month designed to affirm and strengthen parents’ rights. These bills can be classified in terms of whether they affirm fundamental principles of parental rights, assure parental notification, address curriculum and instruction issues, or relate to gender transitioning of children:

Fundamental Principles

Alabama: H.B. 6 prohibits the government from burdening certain fundamental rights of parents (3).

Hawaii: H.B. 1393 states, “Each parent in the State shall have the right to direct the upbringing, education, care, and welfare of the parent’s child.” (4)

Indiana: H.B. 1407 affirms no government entity shall “infringe on the fundamental right of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of the parent’s child” without a “compelling governmental interest of the highest order.” (5)

Minnesota: H.F. 682 seeks to amend the state Constitution to affirm that parents have a fundamental right to “direct the education of their child.” (6)

Mississippi: H.B. 509 states, “The liberty of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care and mental health of that parent’s child is a fundamental right.” (7)

New Hampshire: H.B. 10 establishes a “parental bill of rights.” (8)

North Dakota: H.B. 1403 prohibits “governmental entities from interfering with parental rights.” (9)

South Carolina: H. 3485 includes a provision that the government “shall not substantially burden the fundamental right of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of that parent’s child….” (10)

Texas: HJR 58 proposes an amendment to the state constitution that states in part: “A parent has the right to direct the education of the parent’s child…” (11)

Parental Notification

Indiana: S.B. 413 proposes that schools “may not discourage or prohibit parental notification of and involvement in decisions affecting a student’s social emotional, behavioral, mental, or physical health.” (12)

South Carolina: H. 3197 states that no public school employee shall “withhold from a child’s parent information that is relevant to the physical, emotional, or mental health of the child.” (13)

Texas: H.B. 61 affirms: “The Texas Education Agency shall adopt procedures for notifying a student’s parent if there is a change in the student’s services or monitoring related to the student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being.” (14)

Utah: S.B. 100 states that “each school and each local governing board shall ensure that no policy or action of the school or LEA [local education agency]: (a) operates to shield any student’s information from the student’s parent.” (15)

Curriculum and Instruction

Indiana: H.B. 1608 states that teachers may not provide instruction on ambiguous concepts of “gender identity” to children in grades K–3. (16)

Missouri: S.B. 4 says that parents have a “right to know what their minor child is being taught in school including, but not limited to, curricula, books, source materials, and other instructional materials.” (17)

Oklahoma: S.B. 95 states no school “may provide any sexually explicit material…to a student …without written consent from the student’s parent or legal guardian.” (18)

Gender Transitioning

Indiana: H.B. 1407 protects a parent’s right to raise “the child consistent with the child’s biological sex” and to decline to consent to the child undergoing gender transitioning. (5)

Additional parental rights bills are expected be introduced in the near future in other states (19). A listing of current lawsuits, federal court rulings, and model legislation is available on the SAVE website (20).

Links:

Department of Education Gender Identity Legal Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Clandestine Gender Transitioning at California School Triggers Lawsuit, Call for Legislative Hearings

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 30, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Clandestine Gender Transitioning at California School Triggers Lawsuit, Call for Legislative Hearings

WASHINGTON / January 30, 2023 – A lawsuit has been filed against a California school district for promoting the gender transitioning of an 11-year-old girl without parental knowledge. Many school districts across the nation have adopted similar policies that prevent parents from being informed about their own children changing their gender.

The lawsuit alleges the girl was seeing a counselor at Sierra View Elementary School in Chico, California for mental health issues. One day the girl told the counselor she felt “like a boy.” Subsequently, the school began to secretly transition the girl without parental knowledge or consent. Subsequently, the girl’s mental health began to deteriorate (1).

The girl later changed schools and reverted to her female identity. The lawsuit against the Chico Unified School District was filed earlier this month (2).

A recent report from the American Principles Project notes that transgenderism is marked by a “deadly and destructive combination of ideology, politics, and profits,” and reveals the global market value of sex reassignment surgery to be more than $316 million (3).

The unregulated growth of gender transitioning has resulted in a growing number of persons, known as “detransitioners,” who have decided to revert to their original sex (4).

Sixty-three leading organizations are now calling on Congress to “Conduct hearings on experimental medical practices involving gender transition of under-age children, e.g., puberty blocking drugs, opposite-sex hormones, breast removal, and castration.” (5)

In addition, state lawmakers are being called up to hold hearings to assess the science, ethics, and financial backing of gender transitioning of underage students. To date, federal courts in Florida, North Dakota, and Texas have ruled in favor of placing restrictions on underage gender transitioning surgery (6).

In June, the U.S. Department of Education proposed a new Title IX regulation that would redefine the meaning of “sex” to include “gender identity.” Such a change would serve to promote gender transitioning and have profound, long-lasting effects on child safety, the family structure, and parental rights (7).

Links:

Civil Rights Department of Education Domestic Violence Due Process Free Speech Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sex Education Sexual Harassment Title IX

63 Organizations Urge Congress to Halt the Weaponization of Title IX

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 25, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

63 Organizations Urge Congress to Halt the Weaponization of Title IX

WASHINGTON / January 26, 2023 – Sixty-three leading organizations today are calling on Congress to take strong measures to stop the proposed overhaul of Title IX, the law that was designed to curb sex discrimination in schools. On June 23, 2022 the Department of Education proposed a new Title IX regulation that would redefine the meaning of “sex,” limit free speech, and hobble due process protections (1).

The letter notes that Title IX activists also are seeking to “marginalize the role of parents, promote gender transitioning among minors, make a mockery of fairness in women’s sports, and curtail free speech and due process.”

The letter urges Congress to therefore undertake the following actions:

Pursuant to H. Res 12, SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, investigate how the U.S. Department of Education has collaborated with private sector and non-profit entities to alter the regulatory definitions of “sex” and “sexual harassment,” with the aim of changing the foundational legal definition of “sex” and infringing on First Amendment free speech rights.
Reduce the appropriations to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) by $25 million.
Conduct hearings on experimental medical practices involving gender transition of under-age children, e.g., puberty blocking drugs, opposite-sex hormones, breast removal, and castration.
Vigorously oppose passage of the Students’ Access to Freedom and Educational Rights (SAFER) Act, introduced in December 2022.
Oppose legislation that seeks to expand definitions of “sexual harassment,” promote “trauma-informed” investigations, or seek to weaken free speech, due process, or the presumption of innocence.
Work for the passage of the following legislation:
1. Parents Bill of Rights Act
2. Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act
3. Campus Free Speech Restoration Act
4. Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act

A SAVE public opinion poll reveals strong public support for these actions (2).

The 63 organizations are members of the Title IX Network (3). The letter to Congress can be viewed online (4).

Links:

Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

The Waxman Cometh: London’s Commissioner for Which Victims, Exactly?

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 25, 2023

The Waxman Cometh: London’s Commissioner for Which Victims, Exactly?

Sean Parker

January 25, 2023

Claire Waxman is London’s first Victims Commissioner. In 2011, she won a case to overturn the decision not to prosecute her stalker, university friend Elliot Fogel.

Fogel was first convicted in 2003 over repeated phone calls. The former Sky Sports producer denied he had done anything wrong, but was convicted by a jury of stalking and breaching a restraining order.

Waxman was a contributor to a successful campaign for change in stalking laws, and in 2013 founded campaign group Voice4Victims to continue lobbying for legislation. V4V proposed victims’ rights amendments to the Policing and Crime Bill, passed in the House of Lords in 2016.

Also in 2016 V4V launched the Abuse of Process campaign, which aimed to tackle the problem of alleged victims being abused by alleged perpetrators through legal platforms. Whether this would be following verdict, when a complainant legally becomes a victim, is unclear. V4V also drafted the Sexual Offences Bill, to improve protection for alleged victims of rape and sexual assault. What, if any, connection Waxman has to Betsy Stanko (Operation Soteria grande fromage, charged with increasing UK sexual assault convictions) is as yet undeclared.

Waxman was subsequently reappointed by Sadiq Khan in May 2021. She claims to have undertaken work to transform the criminal justice system to provide a better experience for victims of crime, working alongside victims to amplify their voices, and promoting their interests throughout the ‘criminal justice journey’. Does this also include victims of false allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault, wrongful conviction or incarceration, or men and boys in general?

In December 2022 Waxman issued a series of social media posts that appeared to erase the existence of male victims of domestic abuse, and vilified men. Here are some examples:

December 7: “Our campaign is making a real difference in our fight to end the epidemic of male violence against women and girls for good.”
December 9: “We should reflect on Violence Against Women and Girls in the 21^st Century, and the huge proportion of abuse that takes place online and using technology.”
December 12: “Much more must be done to tackle the harmful behaviors of men.”
December 14: “Zara’s future was stolen by a man with no regard for her life or the law.”
December 18: “We are in an epidemic of violence against women and girls.” December 19: “Everyone has a responsibility to challenge misogynistic views and attitudes.”

Also in 2022, Justice Secretary Dominic Raab declined to renew national Victims Commissioner Dame Vera Baird’s contract. Baird is a well-known radical feminist of the ages. See False Allegations Watch‘s annotated notes on a statement given during her tenure.

According to sources Claire Waxman has been used by the legal-dominance feminist lobby to campaign against the recognition of Parental Alienation in the Domestic Abuse Bill. She allegedly went to the President of the Family Division with a list of names of professionals working on Parental Alienation cases. The source suspected that this was why he referred to people having their professional reputation destroyed in a key speech on Parental Alienation in October 2021. The President didn’t take any action.

So the Victims Industry rolls on unquestioned, due to nobody in power wanting to be seen as denying alleged victims justice. But there are many kinds of victims, and in a world where good is bad, right is wrong, left is right and male can be female, there are also potentially 8 billion victims.

Subjectivity ultimately goes in only one direction – inwards; and let it not be forgotten that prisons also are full of ‘victims’. Those who are charged with creating alleged victims are by and large victims themselves, and even if they claim not to have been, have possibly not yet been correctly coerced into seeing themselves that way.

As is increasingly the case, it’s the terminology that’s the problem: If victimhood is seen as a monetisable virtue, then the image of wrongdoing, pain and suffering must be maintained at all costs, and for as long as possible. Otherwise any possible pretence or change of state might be seen through, and fatal doubt sown. Using negative experience as an emotional crutch is a very dangerous business, as crying wolf is a one-way street; once done, rarely recovered from. And don’t even start on the potential false memories in historical cases, or the social contagion of a million believed stories becoming the industrialised wheels before the new culture-wars ambulance-chasers (MeToo lawyers and their ilk).

Due Process

Compelled Compliance: Resisting the Istanbul Convention

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 19, 2023

Compelled Compliance: Resisting the Istanbul Convention

Sean Parker

January 19, 2023

When David Bowie as Ziggy Stardust in the early 1970s and Prince in the 80s played so entrancingly with what were then called gender roles, surely not even those astute seers of pop culture could have foreseen how thoroughly some of their young viewers and listeners might take it to heart.

Wasn’t it all just a silly phase they were going through? Tens of thousands of sex change operations later, many regretted, many not, the worlds of right and wrong, good and bad, and male and female are being gradually turned on their heads. By the back door however, because many populations resist this unmandated reframing of nature as a commercial life choice, while the ever-resourceful activists are aware there is more than one way to skin a cat. Give them control of a nation’s most popular Twitter accounts and they care not who makes its laws.

The Istanbul Convention is a document that approaches the issues of domestic violence in an extremely ideological way. The risk of the legal sanctioning of the concept of ‘third gender’ (recently rejected by Switzerland) is implicit. The definition of the term gender in the Istanbul Convention fully corresponds to the views expressed by the representatives of extreme feminism.

The agreement also emphasises that since gender roles are social constructs, they are not biologically determined. The assumptions of the theory of gender are based on classical Marxist concepts. According to many adherents to Marxism, conflict is inscribed in the very nature of historical phenomena, and determines the development of social life. Such a concept is based on the belief that social relations are based on antagonisms, with everything reduced to inter-power dynamics.

According to the Marxists, all the existing ethical, moral, legal and religious norms – referred to as the ‘superstructure‘ – serve to petrify existing socio-economic relations, known in Marxist literature as the ‘base‘. The gender theory adopted the perception of the family as a place of oppression from the ideology that forms its basis – i.e. radical feminism – especially from its ‘Second’ and ‘Third-Wave’. Genderism belongs to the broader category of neo-Marxist ideologies. From the philosophical point of view, this ideology is classified as one of the postmodern concepts.

Political activists have long known to set any aim as putatively impossible, and negotiate down from there. Now, however, the establishment is run by those who used to activate in opposition: the establishment is now the woke orthodoxy. Thus, concepts such as third gender, which the people of Scotland opposed while the Scottish National Party tried to ram it through, are introduced in cleverly worded clauses and legal loopholes, problems to sort out later, once the new progressiveness is supposedly established. This is a political tactic passed directly from the Bolsheviks to Tony Blair, stretching the baton arm across the length of the 20^th century.

Sexual assault statistics are being intentionally increased by Operation Soteria in the UK, a partnership with US for-profit Soteria Solutions, a company responsible for destroying thousands of young men’s lives in that country off the back of the ‘campus rape’ hysteria. For the past decade this has been pushed and litigated by radical feminist academics including Stanford professor Michele Dauber, currently under investigation for online harassment.

The Istanbul Convention will extend this spirit of one-eyed vitriol to the sphere of domestic violence, which thorough research tells us is promulgated in a half of cases by women, and is frequently at its most virulent in female same-sex couples. And all of the messaging is anti-male. This is societal demonisation brought on by ideological hate, going on only one direction: female to male, the consequence of fifty-plus years of rabid histrionics.

Hiding subtle, difficult to legally challenge social changes in law is essentially mendacious and undemocratic, power exercised by stealth, and in bad faith since their designers know they won’t command the support of the people who may have voted them in for very different reasons. By the time they get to vote them out, the damage is done, and the social change embedded (if still wildly unpopular). Third genderism, along with all the other anti-male domestic violence and anti-instinct moves currently threatening mainstream society, is doomed to fail due to the toxic activism of those promulgating it.

Campus Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

29 Recent Judicial Decisions Thwart Biden ‘Gender Agenda’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 18, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

29 Recent Judicial Decisions Thwart Biden ‘Gender Agenda’

WASHINGTON / January 18, 2023 – The Biden Administration has issued several policy documents that are designed to promote the so-called “gender agenda” (1). In particular, on June 23, 2022 the Department of Education proposed a new Title IX regulation that would redefine the meaning of “sex,” limit free speech, and hobble due process protections (2).

In response, over 200 organizations (3), numerous state Attorneys General (4), and dozens of federal and state lawmakers (4) have spoken out in strong opposition to the draft regulation.

Since June 23, 2022, seven judicial decisions have been issued that thwart the Biden Administration’s attempts to expand the definition of “sex,” curtail free speech, and promote gender transitioning:

State of Tennessee v. Department of Education, July 15, 2022: In response to a lawsuit by the Attorneys General of 20 states, the District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted a Preliminary Injunction against the Department of Education, blocking the DOE from implementing Biden’s Executive Order No. 13988, “Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation.” (5)
Franciscan Alliance and Christian Medical and Dental Society v. Becerra, August 26, 2022: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, located in New Orleans, unanimously ruled that doctors must be free to practice medicine without compulsion to perform gender-transition procedures. (6)
Speech First v. Alexander Cartwright, September 23, 2022: The District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled against the University of Central Florida for three campus policies that served to suppress student speech. (7)
Neese v. Bercerra, October 14, 2022: The Northern District of Texas Court ruled that Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX do not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The court set aside the contrary enforcement position taken by the Department of Health and Human Services. (8)
Religious Sisters of Mercy et al v. Becerra, December 9, 2022: The Eighth Circuit Court in North Dakota overturned a rule under the Affordable Care Act, Section 1557, that would require “gender-transition procedures” be covered by health insurance plans. (9)
Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, December 30, 2022: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court, and upheld the policy of the St. Johns County School District in Florida, which denied transgender students access to the bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. (10)
B.P.J. et al v. West Virginia State Board of Education, January 5, 2023: The Southern District Court of West Virginia ruled in favor of the “Save Women’s Sports Bill,” which defines “girl” and “woman” as biologically female for the purpose of secondary school sports. (11)

Since June 23, 2022, wrongfully accused students also have triumphed in 22 due process lawsuits against the following universities: University of California, University of Idaho Law School, Dartmouth College, Dordt University, SUNY-Purchase, Brown University (two lawsuits), Purdue University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Arizona, University of Southern Florida, Western Michigan University, Prairie View A & M University, UC-Davis, Marshall University, University of Chicago, University of Connecticut, Emory University, Texas Christian University, Stonehill College, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Siena College. (12)

SAVE urges Congress to take necessary actions to discourage attempts by the Executive Branch to advance the gender agenda.

Links:

Campus Department of Education Due Process False Allegations Free Speech Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

A ‘Naked Assault on Civil Rights:’ Congress Must Stop Attempts to Hijack Title IX and Subvert the Constitution

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 12, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

A ‘Naked Assault on Civil Rights:’ Congress Must Stop Attempts to Hijack Title IX and Subvert the Constitution

WASHINGTON / January 12, 2023 – Title IX is the 50-year-old law that was enacted to stop sex discrimination in schools. But now, groups are attempting to use Title IX to promote a sweeping unconstitutional agenda with harmful effects on students, families, and on society.

Recent months have witnessed three attempts to make far-reaching changes to Title IX:

In June, the Department of Education proposed a new Title IX regulation that would redefine the meaning of “sex,” muzzle free speech, and decimate due process (1).
In September, 19 Democratic senators denounced the presumption of innocence in Title IX proceedings (2). The senators also called for an end to cross-examination, facilely ignoring a landmark Supreme Court decision that described cross-examination as the “‘greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” (3)
In December, the Students’ Access to Freedom and Educational Rights (SAFER) Act was introduced in both chambers of Congress (4). The bill proposed to make sweeping changes to campus Title IX adjudication procedures — changes that are reminiscent of practices seen in the former Soviet Union (5).

The proposals would curtail constitutionally protected free speech and due process protections, eliminate fairness in women’s sports, promote gender transitioning among under-age students, marginalize the role of parents, and exact other harmful effects. Numerous lawmakers have spoken out in opposition to these proposed changes (6).

These changes recently were described by a leading policy organization as a “naked assault on civil rights.” (7)

In response to these and other worrisome developments, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy proposed a multi-point Commitment to America (8). Five of the principles pertain to the recent attempts to reinvent Title IX:

Conduct rigorous oversight to rein in governmental abuse of power, such as an executive branch agency exceeding its legal authority by seeking to redefine the meaning of “sex” (9).
Curb wasteful spending by government agencies, such as the Department of Education (10).
Advance the Parents’ Bill of Rights (11).
Defend fairness by ensuring that only women can compete in women’s sports (12).
Uphold free speech guarantees and assure religious freedom (13).

SAVE urges members of Congress to move quickly to implement provisions of the Commitment to America and stop the Title IX take-over.

Links:

Uncategorized

The Istanbul Convention – Legislating for Internationally Ratified Misandry

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 12, 2023

The Istanbul Convention – Legislating for Internationally Ratified Misandry

‘In an astonishing example of 21^st century newspeak, the IC also insisted that discriminatory measures should not be considered to be discrimination: “Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention”’

Sean Parker

January 12, 2023

I was living and working in Istanbul in 2011, and remember the commotion surrounding the Istanbul Convention – henceforth IC – being held in the city that year. The celebration was loudest among the progressive left, mostly the university-educated and expats, and what struck me at the time was how incongruous to have such a convention held in a city in the grip of strongman president Recep Tayyip Erdogan – not well-known for his support of women’s rights (or anyone else’s rights, for that matter).

A European landmark treaty supposedly to end violence against women, the IC entered into force on 1 August 2014. The IC recognised violence against women as a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination against women, and only women. It covered various forms of gender-based violence against women, which referred to violence directed against women because they are women, or violence being claimed to disproportionately affect them.

In 2021, original IC host country Turkey withdrew from the convention after denouncing it in March 2021. The convention ceased to be effective in Turkey on 1 July 2021, following its denunciation. The main complaints related to concern about the specific ‘gender ideology’, which they argued was in direct opposition to its constitution. Other countries have also not ratified the agreement.

The European Union signed but did not ratify. The UK signed the Istanbul Convention in 2012, but it quickly became apparent that the UK’s domestic laws were not appropriate to meeting its requirements, possibly being seen as counter-intuitive. In a report published in 2015, the UK parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights highlighted a number of issues that needed to be resolved.

The EU Charter of Human Rights is the foundation of the policies of the European Union, and of European society itself. However a review revealed that the IC in fact represented a historic threat to the human rights of Europeans. While at the time of its signing everything seemed ‘progressive’ enough, the fact was that the IC was based merely on a social theory which ascribed domestic violence to a power imbalance between men and women that arose from supposedly ‘patriarchal’ beliefs.

This model of domestic violence has been heavily criticised as a theory that is ideologically based, rather than empirically supported. Hundreds of research findings exist that undermine the exclusivity of the gendered perspective. In an astonishing example of 21^st century Newspeak, the IC also insists that discriminatory measures should not be considered to be discrimination:

“Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention” (IC Article 4).

The IC regularly confuses the words ‘complainant’ and ‘victim’ in the manner of the mainstream media on a regular and increasing basis, thereby short-changing the defendant’s right to an impartial investigation and adjudication. There is a certain irony that a treaty that claims to advance human rights in fact serves to deny a person’s fundamental rights.

This conflation of these terms further extends the transatlantic ‘believe the victim’ policies at play throughout the 2010s and into the 2020s, only being brought to a (cultural at least) halt by the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard libel trial verdict – comprehensively finding in Depp’s favour. It was suddenly clear to the world why self-identified ‘victims’ should absolutely not automatically be believed. High profile cases such as this show how ratifying the Istanbul Convention, and its one-eyed view of allegations of domestic violence, would do nothing less than completely reverse recent positive progress in equality of the sexes.