Zero Tolerance for Violence Against Men
A woman raises her high heel shoe to bash a man, or kick him, or throws things at him, books, vases, plates, cutlery, whatever, capable of doing serious injury, or destroys his things in a rage of temper. These are not stories just out of Hollywood movies, that has been tabled many times over the years, like that terrible exaggerated 1989 ‘Divorce Process’ film, “The War of the Roses” starring Michael Douglas, Kathleen Turner and Director Danny DeVito; these are real life incidents that men are subjected to. Weak men might cower, but real men try to walk away and get out of such relationships, when women go crazy with abuse. Only second-rate men fight back, using excessive counter force. But on the other hand, we need to be careful, when we accuse such men of abuse, men do also have the right of self-defence, when they are being attacked, by wild animals, abusive bully men and abusive bully women. I have experienced such an attack in my young years, by a woman, but I just walked away in disgust. Men can’t go around hitting women even in self-defence, no one believes their point of view, so they simply leave, do nothing, maybe mouth of a few words that achieves nothing and gets the hell away from such fatal attraction women. Foolish weak men stay and take the beatings and foolish tougher men fight back using more savage force and then become the victims of false knowledge allegations, which ignore the vindictive behaviour of the woman that launched the abuse. For this reason, real men, walk away and don’t give such women a second chance. It will be rare for men to go running to the police for protection, they usually just permanently leave such females, or they weakly submit to more abuse. That is why domestic violence societal reaction is more concerned about women, than men, because women being abused, don’t usually have the strength to just walk away and many are trapped by their allegiance to their children that also need care and support.
People have the naïve idea that we can stop domestic violence, by just opposing it with the use of ‘Pro-Prosecution Mandatory Arrest’. Nothing could be further from the truth. The adage used by my parent’s generation… “What is good for the goose is good for the gander” used today in fighting domestic violence, would cause a lot of societal emotional overreactions. The truth is there would be a societal outcry if women were arrested by ‘Pro-Prosecution Mandatory Process’. And that includes women abusing their husbands. What process exists to protect women from opposite sex abusers, should also be used to protect men from opposite sex abusers. But the sham gets more complicated, when same sex couples abuse each other… gay men fighting gay men, and gay women fighting gay women. Boy oh boy, will the police have a gay time sorting out this emotional mess with ‘Mandatory Arrest’.
Yes, equality arguments true to the goose/gander proverb markets the truthful idea that “What is good for a man is equally good for a woman, what a man can do, so can a woman do, what a man can have, so can a woman have.” There are no differences to the sexes in human rights. True enough the average man can physically lift more weight and has better endurance ability than a woman, but that is only an average factor, some women can physically outperform men. There is always an exception to every rule except, in the case of the fact that women can became pregnant, which men cannot, except in the case of the comedy/romance/science fiction 1994 film “Junior” in which a male scientist carries a pregnancy in his own body, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Danny DeVito and Emma Thompson.
When ideality and reality face off against each other, reality wins. Society has a long way to go before it has the courage to equally deal with violent women causes of domestic abuse, as it does with men, all except Islam of course. Muslim men are a protected species, by ‘Sharia Law’. Governments, Corporations and the media are too frightened to offend Muslims, lest they become emotionally oversensitive and spit the dummy, throwing a tantrum like a child.
The following extract in conclusion raises a valid question…
“I believe Government should treat all forms of domestic violence the same and support men to freely report all forms of domestic violence against them. Let’s put a stop to all forms of domestic violence.” (xii)
“Authorities should treat Domestic violence against men same as domestic violence against women. Do you agree?” (xii)
A.I. comments… Of course, most men would be too embarrassed to admit that they were victims of abuse by a woman. They would rather walk away and not prosecute, than drag their embarrassment into the front page of the media. The following extract (xii) sums up reality, the worldview needs to get some balance perspective and realise that domestic violence is not just caused by men, women are significant contributors to abusive conflict and the corrective action solution is not about enforcing ‘Mandatory Arrest’ without the victim’s approval, it is about giving the victim the opportunity to make the decision, as to whether to prosecute or not. And that justice process applies to all victims, be they heterosexual men and women, or gay men and women, or other sexual deviant characters with no real sense of reality.
“When we hear about domestic violence, we think it’s something that is frequently found among women or it’s a crime against women only; but men are victims of domestic violence too. I know it could be hard for individuals to believe whether male domestic violence does exist since it is not often heard of, but domestic violence against men does occur. Men who suffer domestic violence have it just as rough, if not worse than women do, because there is doubt when men report that they are abused, most people don’t believe them. There is a misconception that men can’t be abused, because of masculine power and statistics have shown the number of men attacked by wives or girlfriends is much higher than thought.” (xii)
“In a recent report, Domestic Violence: The Male Perspective, states: “Domestic violence is often seen as a female victim/male perpetrator problem, but the evidence demonstrates that this is a false picture.” I recently did a photography exhibition with a few friends on domestic violence against men and some of the statistics I came across regarding domestic violence against men is astonishing. According to data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey shows that men made up about 40% of domestic violence. It seems when there is domestic violence against women, there is a major outcry among women, celebrities, Government officials, and media but when the same offence is against men, the reaction from Government Officials is non-existent.” (xii)
Unhappy Men… victims of abuse by women, will walk and sit alone at night to escape abuse, until they can relocate. They don’t go to women’s refuges, like women do, there is no male refuge. They simply deal with it alone. Some men cope with traumatic adjustment, others don’t and some even foolishly suicide.
A.I. comments… There is too much Psychology nonsense about how men need to get in touch with their ‘femininity within’ and women need to get in touch with their ‘masculinity within’. Well female abusers of men are listening to society and using their ‘masculinity senses’ to attack men and the men afraid to stand up against the woman is truly practicing the idea of ‘femininity within’. Have we as society lost something by listening to the false knowledge tabled by Psychology? We sure have!
It now has me even more curious, given that the Qur’an as dictated by War Lord Muhammad, approves of the beating of women, does that mean Muslim Men are always the domestic violence abusers? And given that a Muslim man may have four or more wives, does that mean all his wives are abused? Why don’t we hear of four or more Muslim wives abusing the Muslim husband? Are you kidding? They would be conveniently sentenced to death by honour killing, or some other invented excuse, like blasphemy or adultery. In the West, a Muslim would lose face, if he was bashed up by all his wives, he would be too afraid to report that he was a victim of domestic violence. But since ‘Sharia Law’ often illegally exists in the West, the Muslim husband can complain to under the table ‘Sharia Courts’ for disciplinary action against his wives. Hence, through ‘Sharia Law’, fear rules the women and the husband has total control and no Western Movement against Domestic Violence, would ever have the courage to speak against ‘Islamic Domestic Violence’… so much for the ‘Band-Aid Domestic Violence Movement’ in the West. Everyone plays it safe and ignores the abuse of men by women, and ignores the Muslim male abuse of Muslim women, as authorised by the Qur’an and ‘Sharia Law’. So much for the credibility of ‘White Ribbon Day’.
(xii) Website: NIGERIAN WATCH…
A misconception exists in political, legal and even citizens’ circles, as to what does ‘Zero Tolerance’ mean? The words and understanding are clear to most people, but the interpretation of required attention is where misunderstanding unfolds. Zero Tolerance simply means don’t tolerate wrong behaviour. And do strive to correct wrong thinking by living right honourable behaviour. Zero Tolerance does not mean Pro-Prosecute, and use Mandatory Arrest, when the victim refuses to testify and refuses to prosecute to protect themselves or others. A miscarriage of justice can occur when the Police are expected to use Pro-Prosecution Mandatory Arrest methods, without the consensus of the victim.
CBC News Manitoba Canada Posted June 13, 2006… under the subject title… “No ‘zero tolerance’ policy used in Winnipeg: police chief” (xiii). The following extracts is a critical path abridged version of the concerns on the table…
“Winnipeg police do not practise a “zero-tolerance” policy when it comes to domestic violence calls, according to the force’s chief.” (xiii)
“…police Chief Jack Ewatski testified in a civil trial earlier this year that his officers do not use a “zero tolerance” approach to domestic calls.” (xiii)
“Ewatski told a city committee… that officers have very clear guidelines on making arrests in such incidents.” (xiii)
“Reasonable grounds have to exist before they effect an arrest, and I think that’s been made abundantly clear through our policy and through various court cases in both the criminal court as well as the civil court,” Ewatski said. “…our policy is not in conflict with the Criminal Code of Canada.” (xiii)
“In contrast, a “zero tolerance” policy would require police to make arrests whenever an accusation of domestic abuse is made.” (xiii)
“Ewatski maintains Manitoba leads the country in combating domestic violence.” (xiii)
“Manitoba has one of the highest numbers of people charged in domestic abuse cases and one of the highest rates of conviction for that crime.” (xiii)
The words “Reasonable grounds must exist, before they (police) effect an arrest. And that reality applies to all types of crimes, including ‘Domestic Violence’. I believe this Canadian principle is a good foundation standard, subject to the fact that justice is served well by good decisions, as to when valid reasonable grounds for needed arrest do exist.
The ‘Zero Tolerance’ for ‘Domestic Violence’ movement is reaching out around the globe, except in Islamic Nations and Western Islamic Communities. In a brief news item by Radio New Zealand, dated 14th December 2015 it was reported as follows…
Headlines: Fiji military chief warns of zero tolerance for domestic violence. (xiv)
“Fiji’s acting military commander says the country’s military has joined a campaign of zero tolerance for violence against women. According to the Fiji Sun, Rear Admiral Viliame Naupoto has warned members of the force they would be sacked if they abused their wives or girlfriends.” (xiv)
“Rear Admiral Naupoto says Fiji has a sad record of abuse of women and while everyone should be making an individual stand against it, the military is also doing so as an institution.” (xiv)
“The Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama also issued a call at the weekend to unite against domestic violence and sexual assault. He says there’s zero tolerance in Fiji’s legal system for such crimes, but it was also necessary to create a culture which condemned domestic violence and sexual assault.” (xiv)
In another article by ‘Pacific Islands Report’ dated 26th May 2016 by Tevita Vuibau, Suva, Fiji Times, titled, “Fiji PM: No Justification for Domestic Violence, Government Has Zero Tolerance.” Amongst a comparison of two different types of thinking, the report quoted the Prime Minister as delivering the below statement. (xv) And when we think about his words, all decent real men, would absolutely agree with his statement, which I might add is an important essential societal ideality for the philosophical history books as a ‘Reality Based Ethical Standard’. I don’t know anything about his ability or performance as a PM of Fiji, even though I have read newsflashes, and it is not my intention at this point of time, to study his leadership history, I leave that task to scholarly Fijians, but one thing is true and stands alone as historical philosophical truth, and that reality is what Prime Minister Frank (Josaia Vorege) Bainimarama said as follows…
“I simply do not accept the argument that the onus is on a woman not to provoke her partner’s temper. And that if she does so, that somehow justifies or excuses the treatment that is meted out to her.” Mr. Bainimarama said. (xv)
“It is a way of thinking that provides men with an excuse to justify the unjustifiable and women to accept the unacceptable.” (xv)
“It is a way of thinking that is totally out of kilter with the norms of any society with pretensions to decency. And it is a way of thinking that perpetuates a cycle of violence and must be eradicated with the full force of the law. Zero tolerance for those who abuse women and girls.” (xv)
“I want to make it perfectly clear what my own attitude is and that of the Government, I lead. There is no justification, no excuse, for any man to inflict violence on a woman or abuse her in any way. Those who do so are cowards and criminals.” (xv)
A.I. comments… Whilst the above ‘Reality Based Ethical Standard’ is highly valued and treasured by all honourable real men and real women, one serious problem is still floating in space, not being dealt with by society.
Society is not recognising the serious problem of ‘Female Domestic Violence’ against men. A nasty barrage of abuse, the throwing of things at men etc. etc. etc. will and does put men emotionally into a state of stress that can drive them over the edge, on how to handle such abusive women. Women justifiably want equal rights and likewise men have the same right of equal rights expectations. Women also need to be held accountable for their abusive behaviour. And men need to learn to walk away from such vindictive women.
And still everywhere we turn, around the globe, all opposition movements refuse to challenge the authorisation text in the Qur’an that approves of the beating of women.
Only Hypocrites don’t have the courage to stand true to the highest level of ‘Zero Tolerance’ against ‘Domestic Violence’.
If a person does not have the courage to denounce a Qur’an text and to criticise and reject Muhammad’s approval, giving men the right to beat and rape women (verified also in Hadiths) and even accepted by anti-freedom ‘Sharia Law’, then that person is not worth a damn as a human being and all their public gestures opposing ‘Domestic Violence’ is a display of political pretence.
Being afraid to table the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God, is an act of cowardice and is an act of treason, against God, decency, children, humanity and the ‘Free World’. And that is fact.
Same old story below, protect women, but don’t protect men, as far as society is concerned, up until now, early 21st Century, men can be sacrificed in war and peace.
The story… “Women’s Aid working in partnership with Bristol Zero Tolerance” posted on May 11, 2016, stated… (xvi)
“Women’s Aid has taken the pledge and is committed to raising awareness of domestic abuse and becoming a partner of Bristol Zero Tolerance.” (xvi)
“The Director of Services at Women’s Aid, Nicki Norman, signed the pledge and said:
“Women’s Aid started in 1974, with women coming together to create dedicated services for other women and their children, to help them find a safe space away from violence and abuse in the home.” (xvi)
“As a partner of Bristol Zero Tolerance, Women’s Aid will fulfil their pledge by supporting survivors to break free from abuse and raise awareness so that communities are better equipped to recognise and prevent gender-based violence. We will also continue campaign to raise the status of women in society to a level where violence against them can no longer be tolerated. Together our voice is stronger, together our voice is louder.” (xvi)
A.I. comments… The Women’s Aid organisation like so many female organisations around the world focus on the idea that “gender-based violence” is all launched by men. True enough, many men are brutal bullies and are not in reality real men, for real men don’t hit women. But we keep coming back to the same concern, these female organisations are refusing to deal with the violent women that do physically attack men, inspired by their own aggressions and vindictive controlling nature. It is very wrong to put all the blame for ‘Domestic Violence’ on men.
Now, when this example, Women’s Aid Organisation was founded in 1974 it set up a prejudiced view that all ‘Domestic Violence’ was caused by men only, that idea is a lie. Women are not being held accountable by feminist prejudiced organisations, for their violent abusive behaviour against men. Vindictive abuse of men is a lot more common than society will acknowledge. The problem with men is that their masculine ego will not admit that they are being abused by their sex partner. It is imperative that society and organisations put both sides on the table. And it is also a fact that many abused children are abused by the mother, not the father and there are numerous cases around the globe, when a father abuses the children, the cowardly mother does nothing to defend and protect her children, such is the hidden part of the ‘Domestic Violence’ concern.
It is reasonable that in 1974 ‘Women’s Organisations’ knew nothing about the ‘Dark Side of Anti-Freedom Apartheid Islamic Doctrine and behaviour’ but if these organisations don’t know and understand the entire problem in the early 21st Century, they are not too intellectually bright and are living in practice as a biased organisation that refuses to deal with the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help me God.
Society must change the way it thinks… real honesty and real courage, puts the whole truth on the table. Part truth, fractured truth is not the complete truth and is a dishonest presentation of reality.
Why do we call it ‘Gender-based violence’? These words trend to being prejudiced against men, putting all the blame for ‘Domestic Violence’ on the heads of men. Whilst women are not held accountable for their abusive, stress related thinking and behaviour, and many incidents as I tabled earlier are driven by control freak vindictive female obsessions. The truth is that vindictive tempers and control freak mentality is not a unique one side sex thing. Both genders are capable of being kind or nasty. Stop calling it ‘Gender-based violence’. Call it what it really is… “Domestic Violence” and both sexes are equally capable of doing the wrong thing, whether it is a minor error in thinking and behaviour or a major serious issue that must be dealt with and resolved.
To be continued… Disabled Victims – Men and Women
Allan Peter Ivarsson © 2016
Learn ‘Philosophical Intelligence’
‘Blue Light Defiance’ Books… Published on Kindle & Paperback Amazon.com