Category: 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.

Uncategorized

Director of Dutch Knowledge Institute for Emancipation Fired for Transgressive Behaviour

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 10, 2023

Director of Dutch Knowledge Institute for Emancipation Fired for Transgressive Behaviour

Robert van de Griend

Netherlands, Volkskrant News

30 December 2022

Kaouthar Darmoni has been fired as director of Atria, the Dutch knowledge institute for emancipation and women’s history in Amsterdam. She has seriously misbehaved in several areas, according to an external investigation by Hoffmann Bedrijfsrecherche, the conclusions of which are in the hands of de Volkskrant.

Library of Atria on the Vijzelstraat in Amsterdam. Image Joris van Gennip

Darmoni is said to have been guilty of “(sexual) transgressive and intimidating behavior” towards subordinates at Atria, a leading institute that has been committed to equal treatment of men and women since 1935. She is also said to have dealt with employees’ employment rights with ‘dishonesty’.

The conclusions, which are shared in an e-mail from the Supervisory Board of Atria with the (former) employees who participated in the Hoffmann investigation, are extra sensitive because Atria itself advises governments and companies on creating a safe working environment. and combating transgressive behaviour.

The findings also show that Darmoni, who had been a director at Atria since October 2019 and made frequent appearances in the media and the speaker circuit, manipulated the outcome of an employee satisfaction survey. She is said to have removed the “cries for help” expressed by almost half of the staff from the results and thus concealed them from the supervisory board.

In addition, Darmoni, who was born in Tunisia and studied in France, would have told untruths about her education and work experience. Hoffmann speaks of ‘deceit and/or error’.

Based on these conclusions, Atria’s supervisory board nullified Darmoni’s employment contract in early December.

‘Led around the garden’

The investigation into Darmoni was initiated in July after employees expressed their dissatisfaction with her to Atria’s confidential adviser. Since then, Darmoni has not been working, saying she was ill. In the e-mail about the findings of the Hoffmann investigation, which includes the complaints of 23 employees, the Supervisory Board (RvT) writes: can continue.” And: “Although the Supervisory Board was also fooled by Ms. Darmoni for many months and even from the outset, the Supervisory Board regrets that the supervisory system did not function properly on several occasions.”

Three former employees of Atria, with whom de Volkskrant spoke, who worked in different departments of the institute, endorse Hoffmann’s findings.

Independently of each other, they characterize Darmoni as ‘exhibitional’ and ‘uninhibited’. She is said to have seized the opportunity to undress herself on several occasions and to have stood “in her bra or her thong” on the work floor. She would also have kissed employees on the back of the head without being asked. The fact that Darmoni started the weekly meeting on Monday morning with belly dancing as standard – something she herself has said in interviews – was also seen as inappropriate by the former employees.

“We all had to participate in belly dancing,” says Nicky, who, like the two other former employees, only wants to be in the newspaper with a fictitious name for fear of reprisals. “Most of us hated that. Sometimes Kaouthar pressed her breasts or buttocks against you while dancing. If anyone said anything about her behavior, she would laugh at you squarely.”

Culture of fear

According to the former employees, who also shared their experiences with Darmoni with the Hoffmann researchers, there was a “culture of fear” among the dismissed director. Members of staff who criticized her substantive course or management style were systematically publicly insulted, bullied or put aside.

“If you fell out of favor with Kaouthar, you ended up before the tribunal,” says Charlie. “She would turn other colleagues against you or start yelling at you in front of everyone. We had a constant fear: who is going to be next?”

Ex-employee Sam says: “All the time I worked with Kaouthar I didn’t dare ask her a critical question.”

The former employees also say that under the responsibility of Darmoni, the Atria building was filled with cameras that recorded images and sound. Although this was presented as a measure to prevent theft by construction workers, in practice the cameras would also have been used to keep an eye on the staff. “We have been called to account several times about something that was observed through those cameras,” says Sam. “This has been repeatedly raised because it violates the privacy law. But nothing was ever done with it.”

Signals already in 2020

The departed employees are satisfied with the outcome of the Hoffmann investigation, but are also critical of the role of Atria’s supervisory board. They should have intervened much earlier, they think, because there had been signs for some time that Darmoni was displaying misconduct. “Our works council already sounded the alarm in 2020,” says Charlie.

The high turnover of staff at Atria should also have been an indication for the supervisory board, according to the former employees. In 2020 and 2021, a total of 34 people left, according to the institute’s annual reports, out of a workforce of about 33.

The three former employees with whom de Volkskrant spoke, criticize the fact that the supervisory board wants to give as little publicity as possible to Darmoni’s forced dismissal. In the e-mail about the findings of the Hoffmann investigation, the Supervisory Board writes that it is better to keep a low profile in the media. That would be ‘in [the] interest of Atria, the (former) employees and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science as a subsidy provider’ and ‘to protect the victims of the transgressive behaviour’.

Nicky: ‘I understand that the Supervisory Board wants to safeguard the reputation of Atria and the subsidy from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (Education, Culture and Science, ed.). That is also important, because a lot of people are doing good work there. But if you keep Kaouthar’s misbehavior quiet, she will soon be in a high position somewhere else and making victims there too.”

Mediation

When asked, the Supervisory Board informs de Volkskrant that a mediation process with Darmoni had already been initiated prior to the Hoffmann investigation, after ‘serious reports’ had been received about her in December 2021. That trajectory would have been ‘aborted’ by Darmoni in February.

The Supervisory Board does not want to comment on other questions: “We are currently in the legal process. As long as this is still ongoing, Atria will not make any announcements about the matter due to due care, in the interest of all involved.

Kaouthar Darmoni tells de Volkskrant that she will challenge her dismissal in court. She calls the grounds for her forced departure “incorrect” and a “mix of fabrications”. She says she has not seen Hoffmann’s research report.

“I have seen the questions that the Hoffmann researchers have put to the Atria employees. This results in a completely incorrect picture. The opinion of employees who are positive and have objected to the insinuating question posed by the researchers has not been included.’

Furthermore, Darmoni does not want to respond to Hoffmann’s conclusions and the statements of the three former employees with whom de Volkskrant has spoken. “My focus is now completely on this summary proceedings.”

Partly due to her flamboyant appearance, her predilection for belly dancing and her openness about her sexuality, Darmoni has been a welcome guest in television programs, magazines and newspapers in recent years. In March of this year, she talked about her tendency to embrace female employees in an interview with Volkskrant Magazine: ‘Even before the pandemic broke out, I was sometimes warned: be careful with touching, it is transgressive behaviour. Some of the women at Atria found it a little scary at first, but then they loved it.”

Source: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/directeur-van-kennisinstituut-voor-emancipatie-ontslagen-wegens-grensoverschrijdend-gedrag~b633fe15/

Uncategorized

Myths and Hoaxes of Sexual Abuse Stoke ‘Politically Useful’ Fear

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 22, 2020

by Wendy McElroy

[S]ince love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.”—Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, 1513

For those who want to control a population, fear is more useful than love and far easier to elicit. A culture conditioned to feel knee-jerk fear allows political power to rise on a tide of emotions without the need for arguments and evidence. When the adrenaline of fear hits, people cry out for social control in the belief that government can protect them. Those who want to verify a crisis before acting on it are seen as part of the problem because they obstruct or delay the “solution.” For decades, a fear response has been embedded into society through constant cries of “danger!” Many alarm bells have been manufactured, however, because they are politically useful to those who want to produce legislation or funding.

The issue of “sexual violence and women” illustrates this process. Women have received the unrelenting message that they live in danger from men, and only government can save them from it. Predictably, many politicians support and promote this process and conclusion.

The dynamic can be glimpsed through a phenomenon that has become commonplace within feminism: declaring an “awareness month” for specific issues like domestic violence (DV). There is nothing intrinsically wrong with doing so. But the “awareness” declared usually promotes a myth that is propped up a hoax.

Consider one such event: National Stalking Awareness Month (January).

When stalking involves genuine threats of harm, it is a problem that should be legally addressed. But awareness advocates use the term so broadly that criminal behavior is lumped together with totally legal activities. The National Center for Victims of Crime(NCADV) defines stalking as a “pattern of behavior that makes you feel afraid, nervous, harassed, or in danger” which can be physical or verbal contact, unwanted gifts and communication. This subjective definition furthers the myth that common and innocuous behavior, such as repeatedly emailing someone after a breakup, is a criminal matter. Anyone who questions whether persistent emails deserve legal intervention or who suggests a private solution instead is accused of promoting violence against women.

The myth is then given urgency by hoax statistics such as “one in 6 women (16.2%) and 1 in 19 men (5.2%) in the United States have experienced stalking victimization.” The alarmingly high rate of victimization is understandable when it is seen to include unwanted communication. “Repeatedly receiving unwanted telephone calls, voice, or text messages was the most commonly experienced stalking tactic for both female and male victims of stalking (78.8% for women and 75.9% for men).”

A myth joins a hoax and together they seek government support. First recognized in 2004 by the NCADV, National Stalking Awareness Month has received Congressional approval and a Presidential Proclamation. The harm the myth does becomes official. The discussion of stalking now focuses almost entirely on women as victims and men as victimizers. The expanded definition introduces immense subjectivity into the enforcement of laws and policies. The alleged pervasiveness of stalking encourages oversensitivity and fuels fear. Sensationalized rhetoric does much the same. The NCADV, for example, views stalking as a first step toward femicide.

What is the solution to this first indication that women may be murdered? The NCADV offers a list of them—every one of which involves more government intervention. “Ask your legislators to update the federal domestic violence firearm prohibitor to including misdemeanor dating violence and misdemeanor stalking” is one suggestion. Laws and policies increase dramatically, as they have over past decades, but the problem never goes away. It is too politically useful to go away.

Gradually, a climate of fear becomes the cultural norm, especially on college campuses where awareness campaigns and sexual myths are popular. But the panic hits Main Street, as well.

On April 6, the New York Times published an article entitled “A New Covid-19 Crisis: Domestic Abuse Rises Worldwide.” Lockdowns trapped women in close proximity to abusive men, it maintained, and this situation resulted in soaring rates of DV. The conclusion was based upon warnings from DV activists, whose salaries usually depend upon the public attention given to this issue, and upon any reported increase in calls to DV hotlines—calls which were handled as though they were confirmed cases.

In an earlier article for the Libertarian Institute, I observed that police reports are more reliable sources by far, for several reasons. “People access DV hotlines…for many non-DV issues…but they report this crime to the police. The same person may phone a hotline many times, but a police report is…‘one person, one case’. The funding of a DV service often depends on its volume, which encourages overstatement. Police accounts also ground DV in reality, with real names and verifiable details rather than anonymous reports.” The rate of police reports during the lockdown in many or most cities has shown a decline or little change.

Nevertheless, mainstream media around the world echoed the New York Times article. The UK Independent (April 15) stated “Domestic abuse killings appear to double during UK’s lockdown,” for example. The main source cited was an anti-DV “campaigner, who is chief executive of domestic abuse charity Nia.”

Meanwhile, other newspaper accounts indicated that crime in general was sharply down in UK during the same period. This does not mean murders were down, of course, but it raises questions, even if the Independent’s account is accurate. What was the general rate of murder? Did the crime increase for both sexes and, perhaps, more for men than for women? Can murder, which has many motives, be automatically ascribed to DV? Was the murder done by a male partner, as most articles suggested, or was a stranger or a woman the perpetrator? How can the last question be answered if those accused have not been tried?

In America, where murder rates have generally soared since the lockdown, a substantial number of police departments reported a decrease in DV. This should give pause to those reporting on the issue. Instead, the data was strangely interpreted. A recent headline in The Financial Post captured the gist of it, “No surge in domestic violence cases during COVID-19 lockdown—that doesn’t mean it’s not happening.” In short, reports of decline are reason to worry about an increase. Counter-evidence did not discourage fear mongering. Remember, it serves a political purpose and fits an established narrative.

The myths and hoaxes continue to block the possibility of genuine solutions emerging. A big step toward a genuine solution to stalking would be a definition that includes only harm or threat of harm to person and/or property and that includes men equally. A big step toward solving DV would be to credit only investigated cases and to acknowledge that both sexes are victimized at roughly the same rate.

All victims benefit from the truth. Unfortunately, the truth suffers from the disadvantage of being far less politically useful.

About Wendy McElroy

Wendy McElroy is an individualist anarchist and individualist feminist who has written or edited over a dozen books, scripted dozens of produced documentaries, worked as a writer for FOX News for 5 years and published in periodicals ranging from Penthouse to The Hill.

Uncategorized

New Title IX Rules Strengthen Rights For Victims and Due Process For Accused

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 22, 2020

by Michelle Owens

For nearly a decade, college administrators used the pseudo-legal authority they received from the Obama Administration to set up Wonderland-worthy courts where the Queen of Hearts’ motto, “sentence first – verdict afterwards,” was the law of the land. While many argued this was done to make it easier for victims to come forward, there is no evidence it actually reduced sexual assault on campus. Nor did it help victims. This lack of clarity hurt students who’d been attacked and students who’d been unjustly accused.

I have a unique perspective on these issues. For more than a decade I have worked as a licensed social worker with survivors of sexual abuse. As a longtime Nashville attorney specializing in Title IX cases, I’ve also defended those falsely accused of sexual misconduct in the extremes of minor and trivial complaints that ruin lives.

These students have survived an unjust and unfair process. My cases have included representing a student who was charged under Title IX for allegedly touching a girl on her head (this was not on a date or in a romantic setting). Another client was charged for sexual misconduct for touching a student on her elbow at a dance because he was trying to move her out of the way of another person. And one male student was charged for giving an honest compliment to a friend on her outfit.

These are among the cases that allow college administrators to start the process of kicking students out of school and labeling them a sexual predator on their academic record. But they barely scratch the surface of reasons of why changes needed to be made to Title IX, the law that bans sex discrimination in schools. The Department of Education recently released regulations that establish a basic level of privacy for accusers and fundamental due process for the accused. Those who say we cannot have due process and help victims are creating a false choice. We can and must have both and that’s reflected in the long overdue regulations.

In March, the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights released its findings from an investigation of sexual misconduct cases at Penn State University. A review of more than 300 case files involving reports of sexual harassment found numerous procedural errors that seriously damaged the right of both complainants and respondents to a fair process.

Unfortunately, some insist on preserving the ways of the past and say the outlined reforms hurts victims. That’s simply not true. It merely requires that accused students not be punished or expelled until/unless they’re found guilty, that all evidence including exculpatory evidence is disclosed, and that all faculty involved in the investigation are free of conflicts of interest or bias.

In reality, the new Title IX reforms strengthen the rights of victims. Specifically, the regulations: require the school to actually investigate allegations and do so in a timely manner; ensure accusers are not required to disclose any confidential records, including medical and psychological; require the school to give the accuser support in the form of class or dorm reassignments, no-contact orders against the accused, etc., even if they have not initiated an official investigation; allow the accuser to participate in dispute resolution or withdraw their complaint if they so choose; discourage minor complaints that harm the credibility of survivors; and define the proper process of investigation including appeals.

For victims, this means the end of paperwork backlog, slow-walked investigations, disclosure of personal health records, and stalled class and dorm reassignments. For the accused, it means the end of surprise administration letters saying that you’ve been accused of sexual assault and subject to expulsion without evidence or any specifics.

Sexual assault is a serious crime, and the patchwork response from college administrators that has stood for nearly ten years can no longer stand. We need national standards are fair to all students. That is the only way to ensure justice for survivors and due process for the accused. Thankfully, the new guidance on Title IX does just that.

Michelle Owens is a managing partner specializing in Title IX defense, education disciplinary defense, professional license defense and labor law at Agee, Owens & Cooper in Nashville, Tenn.

Uncategorized

Blue State AGs Want To Limit College Students’ Due Process Rights. Red State AGs Are Fighting Back

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 18, 2020

by Ashe Schow

A group of 18 Blue State attorneys general filed a lawsuit against U.S. Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos earlier this month to try and block new regulations that would provide much needed due process to college students accused of sexual assault.

The lawsuit is meant to delay the final rule’s implementation at least until after the November election, with filers hoping former Vice President Joe Biden will become president and cancel the rule all together.

As Inside Higher Ed reported earlier this month, the lawsuit claims the new rules would “reverse decades of effort to end the corrosive effects of sexual harassment on equal access to education,” ignoring the fact that denying due process makes it easier for false accusations to limit access to education and does nothing to stop actual sexual harassment.

The AGs also took issue with the fact that the new regulations limit who can make an accusation (the new rules state the accuser must be a student of the school), are unfair. The whole point of Title IX wading into sexual harassment and assault was to claim accusers had their educational opportunities limited by a college that ignored their sexual assault claims. If the accuser isn’t even a student, their educational opportunities can’t be limited by a school they don’t attend.

The AGs that filed the lawsuit were all from Democrat states: California, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Last week, a coalition of Red State AGs filed a brief defending the new regulations.

The new rule, the AGs wrote, “requires educational institutions to investigate and, where proved, punish allegations of sufficiently severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive sexual harassment. It also provides a needed framework, consistent with long-standing Supreme Court precedent, that protects the foundational constitutional rights of due process and speech.”

The AGs take particular issue with the notion that because the adjudications can’t result in jail time (at least the schools can’t impose such a punishment, they can and do send information gathered to police in order to circumvent students’ constitutional due process rights), then due process isn’t necessary or can be severely limited.

“The need for procedural due process only increases in the context of sexual harassment and misconduct. Although not a criminal proceeding outright, the underlying act at issue in a harassment-related disciplinary hearing overlaps with illegal conduct. A finding of guilt attaches a special stigma to the accused party that will stay with them well after they exit campus,” the AGs wrote.

They also quoted a ruling against Brandeis University from an accused student. The judge in that case wrote, “If a college student is to be marked for life as a sexual predator, it is reasonable to require that he be provided a fair opportunity to defend himself and an impartial arbiter to make that decision.”

The AGs writing in support of the final rule are from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.

The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.

Uncategorized

Black students four times as likely to allege rights violations in Title IX proceedings

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 7, 2020

Jonathan Taylor, Founder

Title IX for all

Among plaintiffs whose races are known and when adjusted for student population, black students are four times as likely as white students to file lawsuits alleging their rights were violated in higher ed Title IX disciplinary proceedings. This data, sourced from lawsuits in our Title IX Legal Database, is based on Title IX For All’s recent research analyzing plaintiff demographic data from the ~650 lawsuits filed against higher-ed institutions since 2011.

This data confirms what many have long suspected: that students of color are significantly more likely to be impacted by higher ed Title IX proceedings. While a sizable portion of plaintiffs are of unknown race, we see no reason to suspect this would disconfirm the basic issue of proportionality.

Please see this attachment for a PDF of the race/sex breakdown of plaintiffs in lawsuits by accused students based on our analysis. The data reveals that when the race of the plaintiff is known, white and black students file lawsuits in fairly even numbers overall. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, however, white students outnumber black students four to one. If they file lawsuits in even numbers, this means that black students are four times as likely as white students to file a lawsuit when adjusted for student population.

These findings come at a time when public officials who have long regarded themselves as champions of civil rights for minorities suspected or accused of crimes advocate a heightened awareness of their rights while simultaneously working to undermine their rights in higher ed settings.

As always, Title IX For All advocates that the rights to due process and freedom from discrimination are fundamental rights for all people and do not stop at the campus property line. Public officials should be consistent with their values and acknowledge that these rights are not in conflict with one another; on the contrary, they are part of the same mission of equal rights for all.

Uncategorized

In college I was falsely accused of sexual harassment. Men like me deserve due process.

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 2, 2020

Domestic Violence Uncategorized Violence Against Women Act

Coronavirus-Abuse Hoax Unravels Across the Globe

Post author By saveadmin
Post date June 17, 2020

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@EndToDV.org

Coronavirus-Abuse Hoax Unravels Across the Globe

WASHINGTON / June 11, 2020 – The Coalition to End Domestic Violence today reports that the oft-repeated claim that coronavirus stay-at-home policies are causing a global “surge” or “spike” in domestic violence has been refuted by police reports gathered from countries around the world.

On April 5, United Nations chief Antonio Guterres issued a Tweet declaring, “Many women under lockdown for #COVID19 face violence where they should be safest: in their own homes….I urge all governments to put women’s safety first as they respond to the pandemic.” (1) The following day, UN Women director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka issued a statement warning, “We see a shadow pandemic growing, of violence against women.” (2)

But police reports received from 10 countries across the globe, listed below in alphabetical order, reach a different conclusion:

Albania: In March 2020, the number of domestic violence reports decreased by 141, as compared to the same month in the previous year (3). Likewise, Judge Durim Hasa reported a decrease in domestic violence cases in his district (4).
Australia: In New South Wales, domestic violence assaults decreased from 2,434 in April, 2019 to 2,145 in April, 2020, representing a 12% drop. Bureau executive director Jackie Fitzgerald said there was no evidence that social isolation measures have led to an increase in domestic violence (5). In Queensland, “Reports of domestic violence breaches dropped 5.6% between March 6 and 27, while court applications related to such matters fell 20% in that time.” (6)
Austria: The incidence of domestic violence has not risen, and many places have seen a reduction, according to reports from dozens of police departments across the country (7).
Canada: The Ottawa Police Service reported that calls requesting an officer’s intervention in domestic disputes were down more than 23% from March 16 to April 30, compared to the same period in 2019. (8) In Toronto, police report a “small drop” in domestic violence numbers since social distancing measures went into effect (9). Police in Vancouver have not seen any increase in domestic violence statistics (10).
India: Earlier this week, Smriti Irani, Minister for Women and Child Development, was asked whether the lockdown has increased domestic violence against women. Her response, “It is false.” (11)
Netherlands: A March newspaper account reported the National Police noted a 12% domestic violence decline, compared to the same week in 2019. (12)
Russia: The number of domestic violence crimes fell by 13% during the lockdown, compared to the same month in 2019. (13)
Spain: During the first two weeks of April, “there has been a sharp drop in complaints being made to the police.” (14)
Tasmania: According to police Acting Commander Stuart Wilkinson, “we’re not seeing an increase at all.” (15)
United States: Among reports gathered from 33 police departments across the country, 11 noted a decline and 19 saw steady numbers of domestic violence cases. Only three offices indicated an increase of 10% or more in domestic violence cases (16).

Many countries have reported increases in calls to domestic violence hotlines. But commentator Wendy McElroy explains why police reports are more accurate than hotlines in tracking trends: “People access [domestic violence] hotlines and services for help on many non-DV issues, including housing, immigration, and medical problems, but they report crime to the police. The same person may phone a hotline many times, but a police report is almost always ‘one person, one case’. The funding of a DV service often depends on its volume, which encourages overstatement. Police accounts also ground DV in reality, with real names and verifiable details rather than anonymous reports.” (17)

While it is possible that domestic violence has increased in some areas, the United Nations’ startling prediction of a new “pandemic” of violence against women around the world has been shown to be false. And extensive global research shows men and women engage in domestic violence at equal rates (18).

In India, Smriti Irani expressed dismay over the domestic violence “scaremongering” at the hands of certain non-governmental organizations (11). In Austria, one group charged feminist-oriented domestic violence groups with using the coronavirus issue to make “untrue statements,” thereby ignoring male victims of violence (7). In Australia, Corrine Barraclough noted, “The myth that domestic violence is surging in lockdown will become one of the biggest lies the gendered narrative leans on for additional funding.” (19)

Links:

Uncategorized Victims

Native American Boys: Forgotten Victims

Post author By saveadmin
Post date June 4, 2020

Native American Boys: Forgotten Victims

by Wendy McElroy | Jun 3, 2020

A recent study by the Nebraska State Patrol and the Commission on Indian Affairs should change how the media and lawmakers view violence against Native Americans. They should look carefully at male victims, but it is far from clear that they will.

The Omaha World-Herald offer s a surprising statistic , “The greatest percentage of Native American missing persons are boys age 17 or younger, accounting for 73.3% of all Native American missing persons in Nebraska.” In fact, they account for 59.6% of missing people in the state. The data is even the more remarkable because it resulted from LB 154, a state bill to “require a report on missing Native American women in Nebraska.” The 21-line bill that authorizes the study mentions “Native American women” six times; men and boys are not mentioned at all.

At long last, male victims of violence may receive the same attention as female ones. Or will they?

Some telling comments conclude the study. Under “Important Related Information,” it states, “During the period of this investigation…there have been several tragic events involving young Native women in Nebraska: the cases of Ashlea Aldrich and Esther Wolfe. These alleged crimes against Native women make plain” why the study and “its ongoing follow through are vitally important.” State Senator Tom Brewer, who co-sponsored LB 154, is quoted: “We need all law enforcement to communicate and work together to address the exploitation and victimization of Native women.” The concluding words of Judi M. Gaiashkibos, Executive Director, Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs, speaks only of “women and children” and laments “actions and policies” that “have displaced women from their traditional roles in communities and governance and diminished their status…leaving them vulnerable to violence.”

Men and boys are nowhere. Nor does the media seemingly note even the possibility of male victims. A Lincoln Journal Star article that anticipated LB 154 was entitled “Senators want to step up investigations of missing or abused Native women.” And a word commonly applied to violence against Native American women is “epidemic.” These women deserve every bit of attention and compassion they receive, but so do males.

Lawmakers also ignore male victims. The latest Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which awaits reauthorization, is an example. It sets the national standard on how sexual abuse is handled, including “Standardized protocols for…missing and murdered Indians.” (Sec. 904) Native American women is one of the Act’s core issues with TITLE IX—Safety for Indian Women addressing the problem. Title IX opens, “More than 4 in 5 American Indian and Alaska Native women, or 84.3 percent, have experienced violence in their lifetime”—a statistic drawn from a National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey entitled “Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and Men.”

The statistic is appalling, but VAWA makes a curious omission in quoting it. Immediately after the 84.3 percent figure, the Survey cited reads, “More than 4 in 5 American Indian and Alaska Native men (81.6 percent) have experienced violence in their lifetime.” In other words, Native American men experience only 2.7 percent less violence than women. A few lines later, the Survey states “55.5 percent” of women and “43.2 percent” of men “have experienced physical violence by an intimate partner,” figures that differ by 12.3 percent. And, yet, this data does not make it into VAWA.

It is difficult to avoid concluding that VAWA slants important evidence in order to champion female victims and dismiss male ones. In theory, the programs VAWA administers are available to both sexes even though the language is gendered for females. In practice, VAWA is widely accused of making only a tiny portion of its considerable resources available to men.

The plight of male victims must be well known to lawmakers who appear to be passionate about issues like domestic violence (DV). A 2019 article in Indian Country Today, “Breaking the silence on violence against Native American men” cites “a recent study by the National Institute of Justice”; it reported that “more than 1.4 million American Indian and Alaska Native men have experienced violence in their lifetime.” The total may be an understatement. Males victims of DV ”are often reluctant to seek help or tell friends or family out of embarrassment and/or fear of not being believed. They may worry that they—and not their partner—will be blamed for the abuse.”

The blind eye to male victims is not limited to Native Americans, however, but pervades most discussions of DV. Consider the VAWA provision that allows battered immigrants to petition for legal status. In 2016, Attorney Gerald Nowotny called out the provision’s unfairness to men. Nowotny wrote, “The irony is that when it comes to the perception of domestic abuse, the focus is almost exclusively on men as the perpetrators of violence and abuse. The statistical reality is that more men than women are victims of intimate partner physical violence and psychological aggression.” Nowotny’s assessment derived from a 2010 national survey by the Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Justice that found more men than women experienced physical violence from an intimate partner and over 40% of severe physical violence.

But the assumption of mainstream media and lawmakers seems unshakable: men commit violence against women; men are not victims. What if this gender bias were a racial one? What if VAWA was the Violence Against Whites Act? There would be and there should be outrage. The same people should be as outraged as by the suffering of men who too often remain silent for fear of being ridiculed or not believed. In this regard, male victims today resemble female ones from decades ago; they are revictimized by a system that does want to hear their voices.

Title IX Uncategorized

Restoring Impartial and Fair Investigations on Campus

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 29, 2020

Restoring Impartial and Fair Investigations on Campus

SAVE

May 29, 2020

The new Title IX regulation, recently released by the Department of Education, contains several provisions designed to assure impartial and fair investigations on campus: http://www.saveservices.org/2020/05/new-title-ix-regulatory-text-34-cfr-106/ The relevant provisions, with key words in bold, are listed below:

Section 106.45 (b)(1): A recipient’s grievance process must—

(i) Treat complainants and respondents equitably….

(ii) Require an objective evaluation of all relevant evidence—including both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence—and provide that credibility determinations may not be based on a person’s status as a complainant, respondent, or witness;

(iii) Require that any individual designated by a recipient as a Title IX Coordinator, investigator, or decision-maker, or any person designated by a recipient to facilitate an informal resolution process, not have a conflict of interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents generally or an individual complainant or respondent. A recipient must ensure that Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any persons who facilitate an informal resolution process, receive training on….. how to serve impartially, including avoiding prejudgment of the facts at issue, conflicts of interest, and bias… recipient also must ensure that investigators receive training on issues of relevance to create an investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence….Any materials used to train Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any person who facilitates an informal resolution process, must not rely on sex stereotypes and must promote impartial investigations and adjudications of formal complaints of sexual harassment;

These regulatory provisions represent an important step in restoring impartiality and fairness to campus investigations.