For the most part -- if not the entire part -- the issue of 'words' has been marginalized and pushed aside in the information-gathering process and evolution of 'domestic violence' cases.
This is a big mistake -- as is the issue of 'personal invasions of space and privacy', which I will talk about a little more in the next 'mini-essay' in this section.
Words make up an important part of the 'context' of a domestic violence case. What words were said? Who issued them? Why were they issued? Were there threats of intimidation or coercion involved? What were the nature of the provocations that led up to the alleged domestic assault? What was the contextual background of what was going on here? Was one person being rejected? Betrayed? Cheated on? Leaving? Was there jealousy involved? Possessiveness? Money? What triggered the escalation of the domestic scene to one of violence? What was the extent of the violence? Does one person have a history -- a track record -- of violence? Or a completely clean record? What is the mental stability or instability of each of the participants in the situation? Is there a track record of one of the persons along this line? The main question here is 'What were the triggers -- verbal and/or preceding behavioral -- that escalated the scene to one of violence -- or alleged violence -- and one person calling the police?
Let me give you an example from outside the realm of domestic violence. There was an infamous baseball scene here in Toronto back in the 1990s where one of Toronto star baseball players -- Roberto Alomar -- apat on an umpire's face. Alomar's reputation in Toronto -- and else where -- his character and integrity, took a huge negative hit. I'm sure he was suspended by the baseball commissioner at the time although I don't know for how many games.
Now here is the point. Alomar committed the act that he committed and it was in essence and 'assault' although I don't think he was charged for assault. Likewise, perhaps worse, if he'd wound up, taken a swing at the umpire, and broken his jaw or given him a black eye, a bruise or something. I am certainly not advocatinng or supporting any type of violence here -- even in a sports event between two grown men who may or may not both be willing participants.
However, not too long ago, earlier this year sometime, and over ten years after the fact of this negative incident (I can't remember what year it was when this incident happened but I am sure I can probably find it on the internet and get back to you) -- it came out in some news forum or some interview that what the umpire said to Alomar was truly 'nasty' and 'under the belt'.
Why are we only hearing about this -- allegedly true infomration -- about 15 years after the fact? It is important contextual information relative to what happened? What did the umpire say? How bad was it? Even though Alomar still needs to be held acountable and responsible for what he did, he also deserves a fair 'trial' -- if only in this case in the court of public opinion. If the umpire involved in the incident, said something to Alomar that was truly 'despicable' and a 'low blow' -- then he should be held accountable and responsible for his proportion of guilt in what happened.
And so it is in scenes of 'real or alleged domestic violence'. If one person says something to the other that is truly 'nasty' and 'despicable' or 'totally disrespectful' or a 'threat of intimidation' ...or anything along this line, then this information needs to be collected by the examining police officers -- and not 'marginalized', or 'neglected', and/or 'conveniently swept aside' in order to 'narcissistically and discriminatively' move the investigation along in a biased and prejudicial fashion that they were 'taught to move the investigation along in' before they even arrived at the scene.
If one police officer says to one of the participants in the scene of alleged domestic violence, 'It doesn't matter what words she said to you, or how 'postal' she went on you, or what 'threats' she made to you, or how much she 'invaded your personal space' (how many different rooms of the house she chased you into to give you a piece of her mind...) -- the only thing that is important here is 'who struck who -- or who pushed who -- first? And if that was you, my man, then I have explicit instructions to handcuff you, charge you, and take you to straight to jail.
That kind of a message from a police officer to a participant (it was said to me by a male police officer) corrupts, biase, prejudices, and toxifies a 'domestic violence' case -- and its rightful collection of 'potentially relevant and important contextual data' -- right at the beginning of the case. And everything that happens afterwards in the case is both tainted by, and indeed, adds to the corruption, pollution, discrimination, bias and prejudice, as it continues to develop and move along. In by far the majority of alleged domestic assualt cases, the man doesn't have a 'snowball's chance in Hell' of getting a fair hearing and a fair trial. Everything is corrupted, politically and legally systemic and discriminatory before the process even starts...
The irony and hypocrisy of the situation is that the same 'contextual background factors' that narcissistic feminists want overtly or covertly eliminated from the investigation scene when it is the man being charged with the assault -- they will be the first ones to 'cry foul' if it is a woman being charged with the assualt and it the 'background contextual factors' that are being ignored or marginalized in her case. The hardest line groups of 'narcissistic feminists' do not want equal rights; they want to 'have their cake and eat it too'. And more than this, being outspoken and politically powerful in all of their individual and collective voices, philosophies, rhetorical arguments, intimidations, manipulations, and 'backroom negotiations -- dare I say collusion or will I get sued? -- with politicians, the most shocking part of all of this is that so many of their 'hardline-one-sided-agendas -- have become domestic law. In essence, a male-dominated domestic legal system has now been turned upside down and become a female dominated domestic legal system.
And that, my friends, is no closer to 'equal rights' than we were fifty years ago -- it is just turning the legalized discrimination of a patriarchal society against women into the legalized discrimination of a matriarchal society against men.
Neither are equal rights. Both involve preferential bias and discriminatory bias.
Both are equally corrupt, toxic, and poisonous to a democratic -- indeed, any -- society.
-- dgb, June 21st, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment