New VAWA: using "unpleasant speech" and causing "emo. distress" gets you convicted DV

[The Invisible Man]

Has anyone here looked into whats inside the new updated senate version of the violence against women act? Absolutely disturbing stuff. What business does the federal gov have getting involved in any of this to begin with?

FreedomWorks criticized the cost of the legislation — $660 million — and pointed out that domestic violence is “already illegal in all 50 states.” It added: “Supporters of the VAWA portray women as helpless victims - this is the kind of attitude that is setting women back.”

Heritage Action is scoring VAWA as a “key vote” in determining a lawmaker’s conservative credentials.

Claiming that the reauthorization would expand the definition of domestic violence to include “emotional distress,” Heritage declared that the “expansive and vague language will increase fraud and false allegations, for which there is no legal recourse.”

FreedomWorks also worried that the legislation would be unfair to men.

“The newest version of the VAWA, S.47, contains very vague and broad definitions of domestic violence,” the organization wrote. “A man that raises his voice at his partner, calls her an offensive name, stalks her, causes her any emotional distress, or simply just annoys her can potentially be prosecuted under the VAWA. Calling your spouse a mean name is not advised or polite, but it isn’t the same thing as violence towards her.”

So all you have to do now is raise your voice or call your wife a name and that is grounds for being convicted for domestic violence. So what happens to you if you are convicted of this federal crime?

Any man who is accused of domestic violence effectively loses a long list of constitutional rights accorded to ordinary criminals. These include due process, presumption that he is innocent until proven guilty, equal treatment under the law, right to a fair trial, right to confront his accusers, freedom of speech, right to privacy in family matters, custody or visitation with his own children, and even the right to bear arms. The woman is provided with legal representation even though she has not presented any evidence of injury or harm. The man gets no such help.

Just call your wife a name and you lose all your constitutional rights including your legal right to own firearms? What an outrage. Eric Cantor and the other RINOs are pushing this updated piece of trash legislation and are saying any republican who votes against it will start a civil war. Bring it on you POS!

Links:

In Closed-Door Meeting, Cantor Warned of

The PJ Tatler » VAWA Is Just Bad Policy. Period.

The Thinking Housewife › Violence Against Women Act

[TheFireRises]

Women really are the useful idiots of the government "masters."

I pray everyday for the bottom to drop out.

[The Invisible Man]

Women really are the useful idiots of the government "masters."

I pray everyday for the bottom to drop out.

Yep... the supporters of this new bill are claiming that women would never abuse this new power and call the cops for "name calling" but only "true emotional abuse". Yet the definitions for such are so vague any good lawyer could get it to fit. They also say no judge would convict a man for petty accusations. Well I think the past 30 years has proven when you hand a woman the proverbial gun she will not hesitate to use it if it gives her an advantage to get what she wants or as an avenue for "revenge". All you need is such a woman and a feminist or liberal judge (which is common) and you are done, stick a fork in it, your life is over. Like the article says, you have NO LEGAL RECOURSE to a false claim!

Co-habitating with a woman is insanely stupid in this day and age and it's about to get much worse if this new updated bill passes.

[Older and Wiser]

Women have control of the Liberal Block of those in government ... and MEN are slowly being legislated into "badness" and "prison" merely because they are men.

MGTOW is going to be the ONLY way a man even has a hope of protecting himself ... avoiding women entirely, or at least as much as is possible in today's society.

Older and Wiser

[7 Deadly Sins]

This new bill will just hurt women in the long run because men won't marry them anymore or be in relationships. If it's illegal to do things that should be done like not rewarding bad female behavior, then more men won't deal with women anymore outside of fucking. Win for us (well if you're a ghost anyway). White knights and manginas deserve everything they get. You always get it how you live.

[TheDisgruntledGentleman]

This bill should be entitled 'How Women End Up Old and Alone' because that is exactly what it will do...

[hasmat]

Vagina Always Wins Act?

[fester]

All the new provisions are unnecessary bullshit as all a woman has to do (or has ever had to do) is LIE. Works just as well.

How do I know? Because it happened to me.

[HoneyBadger]

Oh thank goodness, I was worried the marriage rate wasn't dropping fast enough. Of course this is just the government trying to get more money out of men via settling VAWA claims.


Can someone remind me why people want to get married in 2013?

[RedNova]

Wait, I thought VAWA was about to be fixed? I thought a bill was being passed that made it less damaging to men's rights than it currently is.

Edit: I remembered a thread on here not long ago that talked about that. And AVFM was buzzing with activity because of it.

[hhb3]

House majority leader Eric Cantor is increasingly frustrated with a group of House Republicans who are working against the leadership, and he’s not afraid of voicing his dismay.

In a closed-door conference meeting on Wednesday, Cantor told one GOP member that if they blocked the Senate-passed Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) from coming to the floor, they’d cause “civil war” in the ranks.

Cantor’s comment irked some Republican aides, who told National Review Online that such strong language is inappropriate. In recent days, some conservatives have been upset about the Senate’s version of VAWA, saying that parts of the bill are unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, Cantor’s warning may have had an effect. When the bill came to the floor on Wednesday, only nine Republicans voted against the rule to take up the bill.

Tensions between backbenchers and the leadership, however, are evident. Behind the scenes, House Republicans voiced their concerns about VAWA throughout the day. Eventually, though, the rule passed, 414–9, and the House plans a final vote on the Senate’s version of VAWA on Thursday.

The nine who voted against the rule include Georgia Senate candidate Paul Broun and potential Iowa Senate candidate Steve King.

In Closed-Door Meeting, Cantor Warned of

[hhb3]

Just ignore the cunts.

[TheManWithAPlan]

Here's how ridiculous it will get.

Claiming “the truth,” being the authority, defining her behavior, using “logic.”

Also current things that are domestic violence.

makes you ask for money, or refuse to give you money?
Ridiculing or insulting the partner’s beliefs
Misusing, stealing or extorting the partner’s financial resources (this doesn't apply to men apparently)
Accusing partner of infidelity (apparently this doesn't either)
Coercing partner to have sex without protection against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases (i'm on the pill, I swear)

And there was another one I can't find right now where "he stands in doorways or moves towards them when arguing" was domestic violence because it made the woman feel threatened that he was going to leave. Mind you being forced to stay when you want to leave is also domestic violence. They should just slap a sticker that says "Only applies to women if perpetrated by a man" on it.

[TheDisgruntledGentleman]

The silver lining is that things get most absurd right before they collapse...

[hasmat]

the Victims are Always Women Act?

[Blackknight]

Yep... the supporters of this new bill are claiming that women would never abuse this new power and call the cops for "name calling" but only "true emotional abuse". Yet the definitions for such are so vague any good lawyer could get it to fit. They also say no judge would convict a man for petty accusations. Well I think the past 30 years has proven when you hand a woman the proverbial gun she will not hesitate to use it if it gives her an advantage to get what she wants or as an avenue for "revenge". All you need is such a woman and a feminist or liberal judge (which is common) and you are done, stick a fork in it, your life is over. Like the article says, you have NO LEGAL RECOURSE to a false claim!

Co-habitating with a woman is insanely stupid in this day and age and it's about to get much worse if this new updated bill passes.

If women wouldn't use this nonsense legal action for name calling why would you put it in the bill....yea thats what I thought.

[PhilosopherStoned]

This is the end game.

You are seeing the beginning of the end. Truth is out on all sides. People are waking up to the illusion, and its making the governments increasingly desperate. If you look at the list of behaviors that constitute "emotional distress", all of them are normal interactions in a relationship, especially with a woman. In fact, the women instigate most of these behaviors.

I don't know what they hope the end result is going to be, but I anticipate many people looking at the govt. and most authorities the same way we look at women. As they continue to overreach and defy sanity, people will start to wonder what they need the govt for, and then seek to find their own solutions.

I don't see the apocalyptic chaos that others wanna see when the system finally crashes, I see many just washing their hands of the system. One by one, people will say "fuck this" and walk away. They may begin bartering, they may stop paying taxes, they will minimize their footprint as much as possible, while the government scrambles to control the few people who still need it. Anyone care to guess who that group will be?

[ubermensch]

As far as I am aware, a similar type of legislation has already been passed in Australia or is about to be passed.

The final nail in the coffin for women wanting to settle down with a decent, good looking, intelligent, thinking man.

Like me.

Get fucked, CUNTS!

P.S. I'm quite softly spoken in real life, lol ;)

[HoneyBadger]

I don't see any apocalypse happening either, but I see a damn good time for MGTOW in the future

[mongolking]

As far as I am aware, a similar type of legislation has already been passed in Australia or is about to be passed.

It's pretty obvious this is the sort of thing legislators the world over talk about between themselves, and then pass into law, without any reference to the rest of us. Reminds me of the gay-marriage thing. None of the general public that I know - even the odd gay - seems to care that much about it. And yet go to any newspaper of any country in the West, and you'll find it's being published everywhere nearly every day. It's being made into a cultural theme - but it isn't coming from the grass roots. It's being manufactured.


I'm personally convinced now that Western governments are deliberately doing everything they can to drive the sexes apart, and that part of that campaign includes encouraging us all to go gay if that relieves us sexually. Laws like VAWA make having anything to do with women dangerous. Marital property laws make marriage dangerous. Removal of any kind of paternal claim on children make fatherhood pointless.

Every single passage of law relating to marriage and opposite sex attraction has been to discourage it. It's becoming too blatant to be any kind of coincidence.