I’ve added this film to YouTube largely regarding UK judge Brenda Hale’s ludicrous redefinition of the word ‘violence’ in order to help a woman find public housing, but more needs to be said about the sorry state of UK law.
I’ve outlined before how the law is not concerned with what’s best for people, only on what’s best for itself. However, now we can add a new co-chief beneficiary of the law; it enforces what’s best for women.
According to Brenda Hale, the meaning of the word ‘violence’ has moved on.
Her nibs, Ms Brenda Hale
Lets try that again: the meaning of the word ‘violence’ has “moved on”.
Make any more sense with repetition? I doubt it. You know why? Because it’s idiocy, that’s why.
The definition of violence hasn’t moved on, rather it’s taken off on a flight of Feminist fantasy.
It’s a fantasy promoted by Feminist idiots and it seems Brenda Hale is a big fan.
Violence has not changed, what’s happening is that our new breed of Feminist judges is succeeding in redefining words as they choose in their fevered imaginations, so that it becomes easier and easier to falsely target men as Domestic Violence abusers.
Is this what we should expect from affirmative action for female judges? Is it more brilliantly insightful Brenda Hales’ we can look forward to? So brilliant, she can redefine the English Language on a whim to suit one of her own? Lord help us.
Role Reversal
If anyone thinks for one moment that this is a gender-neutral ruling, you are failing to read between the lines. Yes, the language is even handed with liberal use of words like “spouse” and “partner” and even “husband or wife”. But the reality is very different.
It says it’s aimed at men and women, but it’s aimed at men.
Look at the URL and note the word in bold:
“http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350761/Women-entitled-council-house-partner-shouts.html”
Regardless of how the article has been hastily re-edited to emphasize gender neutrality and regardless of how the judgement appears neutral, as we all know and as the journalist who wrote the article knows, it will only ever be interpreted against men and in favour of women.
Do you, in your wildest imaginings, think that a man could be adjudged to be a victim of violence and deserving of new housing at tax payer expense because his girlfriend shouted at him?
No, this is all about defining men as abusive whenever it suits some female in some way. And women in the legal system (and men, of course) will find a way to make the gender-neutral legal system be about as fair to men as a loan-shark’s interest rate.
Is Domestic Violence really everything?
I’ve looked at the mis-definitions of DV before, but the issue now is that it’s not just hateful Feminist charities and silly Feminist agencies saying it, now it’s the highest court in the land.
Undoubtedly, some female judge will soon rule that a man taking a piss too loudly counts as violence because the sound waves of male urine hitting the toilet bowl is offensive and hurtful to female eardrums. It assaults her senses and lowers her quality of life. This might be termed ‘Pissing domestic violence’.
And perhaps the sound of a male shaver cause hurt and distress to women. Behold the new and exciting ‘Shaving domestic violence’.
Male back hair quite clearly counts as ‘Visual domestic violence’ and any man with such hair must be aware that the full weight of Brenda Hale the law may be brought down upon him if his partner makes a complaint about this violent assault on her vision.
Don’t play chess with your wife…
00m 55s
(Clip from Domestic Violence – Introduction)
Do you imagine that the people who defined ‘violence’ never had an argument? Do you think that we are so enlightened now thanks to the efforts of our Feminist lobbyists and our Feminists in government and our Feminist charities.
No, we are not enlightened now, the law is simply engaged in the business of misandry and the destruction of all semblance of normal family life. And business is good.
What we have…
Rank idiocy at the top of the legal system. A female judge put there by an establishment hell-bent on inserting women into positions of authority even when they clearly lack the ability to do the job with fairness, intellect and competence.
A female judge thinks that it’s acceptable to define words according to how she feels about it. Language is mutable, says she.
From the article:
“Family law expert Jill Kirby yesterday drew a comparison between the ruling and the Humpty Dumpty character in Lewis Carroll’s Through The Looking-Glass, who said words meant whatever he wanted them to mean. She said: ‘The judiciary are taking the Humpty Dumpty view, and it risks undermining confidence in the legal system.’”
The law is not at risk of being undermined, the law is an ass and as Brenda Hale so clearly demonstrates, so are many of it’s judges.
We don’t need more female judges. Please no more female judges! If it’s more like Brenda Hale that we get, the law won’t be so much brought into disrepute, but rather driven into a lake.
What we need…
What we need is an “off with their heads” type attitude. Of course, this is not about violence but rather the idea that we need a restart.
If the people presently at the top of the legal tree are enforcing on us all such idiotic Feminist thought (a raised voice is ‘violence’) these people simply need to go. We can’t live like this, where men are effectively corralled like animals and anything a man does that might conceivably upset a women, or go against her wishes, is now, officially domestic violence.
From the top of the legal pole we have people who have lost touch with reality telling us how we should live and how male shouting is now violence.
At the top of the tree, we have ludicrous Feminist thought that ‘violence’ is whatever it needs to be to help women and to attack men.
In fairness, the fact that our dear Brenda is a woman is largely irrelevant, but it is necessary to point out that she illustrates the behaviour of virtually all women in positions of authority; her primary interest is focused on improving women’s rights at the expense of men’s rights. She has done this before:
Brenda Hale in action against men in the past
01m 07s
(Clip from Fathers’ Rights)
and other female authority figures and female focussed research groups, do the same:
There ain’t nobody here but us Women
02m 12s
(Clip from Equality – Toxic Women)
Consequences
Are the police ready for the new workload coming up?
“Excuse me officer my wife was violent to me this morning. She shouted out me to stop leaving the fridge open. I feel abused and demeaned; arrest her at once!”
I’m sure the police, mindful of the wise utterings of our Brenda, will be rushing to my aid to arrest such a violent woman. But, of course, this is a flight of fancy. They’ll arrest me instead for my actions in forcing the poor woman to shout at me. After all, a man leaving the fridge door open may well be one of the upcoming definitions of violence: ‘fridge door domestic violence’. Is that right, Ms Hale?
We should not ever, ever be ceding such granular control over our lives and our intimate relationships to the law and the demonstrable imbeciles who administer it. It is not for the courts to dare to tell us how to behave on such a level.
They should not dare and we should not allow them to redefine the limits of the law at their whim and make criminals of us all not because of our bad behaviour, but simply because they’ve decided to criminalise our normal behaviour.
We should not allow the courts to continue to tear apart our families like this under the thin pretence of protecting women from abuse.
As I’ve said before, this is gist for their mill; we suffer so that they prosper.
Feminists despise men and family
01m 54s
(Clip from Intimacy)
This reinterpretation of language and meaning is not progressive, rather it’s progressively more insane Feminist dominion over law.
‘Family’ is becoming extinct, even as a concept due to the deliberate actions of ‘wimmin’ like Brenda Hale.
This judgement is so obscene, so destructive and so lacking in intellectual rigor, it’s even making women – the supposed beneficiaries of such legal munificence – uncomfortable:
“I’m always shouting at my husband but no, Lady Hale, I don’t think I ought to lose my home because of it” – Cristina Odone, The Telegraph
Feminist ideology has a strangle hold on the law and on our politicians, hence the absolute, near-incomparable idiocy of Brenda Hale’s judgement.
Nothing else could explain the total vacuity of her beliefs.
Vacuous, destructive beliefs that are now de facto law in England.
Sources and Links
Types of Abuse – UK Domestic Violence Project circa 2002. Widely adopted definitions of DV.
2010…both my brothers fell victim of this crazy nonsense. The government must have been feeling their way with these laws then. They are both decent human beings and not bad men, but their so called nearest and dearest must have been educated by other low life women about the forthcoming laws.
Needless to say…they were both turned out if their own homes and haven’t been allowed back since. Advice to anyone thinking of getting serious with a woman these days…save yourself a lot of money and stress and don’t even think about it.
This is just a smoke screen, the real reason is to give the State an excuse to enter into your home & once in they will never leave.
I do not feel sorry for the moron’s who bring women into their homes & then are kicked out by the same women (with her friends the Police, Court’s,Government,etc..), or get their dicks cut off, get accused of assault, get accused of rape, etc..
If these fools have not learned their lessons by now, then they never will.
The sex with these women must be amazing, for the “men”, who are willing to give up everything.
The problem here is not “men” (nor in the final analysis) is it “women”. The real problem is those who are using women against men.
How you can come here with what you know of the information on this site and what I’m trying to do, and write like this is beyond me. You say you lack sympathy for men who “get their dicks cut off” and you even put the word ‘men’ in quotes in true Feminist shaming fashion. Your language is misandric and that’s not tolerated here.
I think I understand something of your frustration at the way things are, but your vitriol is misplaced and you are no longer welcome to post here.
No anger, no passion, no emotion. Slowly, slowly. All deviation punishable by imprisonment and put to shame through various sin-registers.
A society of conveniently obedient machines is what governments want.
Just the other day I was wondering why does the government allow these things and you answered that for me. Big business.
I’d love a healthy normal relationship but it appears to be more of a minefield these days than a lifestyle.
I like my man legs attached right where they are so I can kick feminists right in the only place they seem to have any feelings.
Here in Italy in 2008 a young man has been sentenced to 10 days in jail and a 40 euros fine for “insistent glance” toward a 55 years old woman. They basically were in the train, and she said he was “looking at her insistently”. When she got off the train, she went to the Police and sued the young man. The day after, the police followed this man to see if he was some king of “maniac” that was just staring at women in a weird way, but they found nothing strange. He was just a regular dude.
Nonetheless, the legal action put forth by the woman went on anyway, and this man got sentenced to 10 days in jail and 40 euros fine.
I guess in the US and the UK this thing is called “visual rape”, at least this how some feminist “theologian” called it years ago.
I guess in the US and the UK this thing is called “visual rape”, at least this how some feminist “theologian” called it years ago.
I don’t know of a law in this country against just looking at someone as yet. That doesn’t mean to say some crazy, government official may one day think it’s a good idea.
To my way of thinking, she must have been playing eyeball ping-pong with him anyway to be so sure it was insistent visual contact, so doesn’t that make her insistent/persistent too? Whatever bloody next!
If it does ever come to that then I’d think it time to kick out government altogether. If the powers that be think they can keep up with this type of pressure then they are mistaken. Something will give eventually, and we will see scenes like in Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Egypt etc…
The last two British Labour administrations were contemplating something like this. Labour is a party riddled with feminists. The men are all manholes.
Nothing was ever put forward for cross-party parliamentary discussion, but it appears they were using their press mouthpieces in order to gauge public reaction, then to decide whether to go further.
Nothing happened. It fizzled out.
But I’d be wary. I think we need to keep a close eye on what they are planning. I do not trust politicians. When you think that Hitler was also a politician, I would put nothing past them.
“The problem here is not “men” (nor in the final analysis) is it “women”. The real problem is those who are using women against men.”
Exactly right… I have been saying this for years. Feminism does not exist in the circles of the elite men who run the world it is a tool used against he common man.
There are twon ways to take over a society, by force or by economic subterfuge. Subterfuge however requires distraction and confusion, urest, instability as cover.
Transforming a natural patriarchy into an artificial matriarchy weakens and destabilizes any cultural, making it easy prey for takeover.
Sorry for spelling errors in previous post, there doesn’t seem to be a way to edit, I typed too quickly. Anyway I see this insanity coming to the U.S. very soon in one form or another.
Not only are common men not allowed to be men in relationships anymore, it appears we’re not allowed to be even human.
In fact those who are using women against men, are also using women to turn men against men.
It’s working. We’re a divided society. We’re scared of everyone around us, and everyone around us is scared of us. Just what government wants to in order to grow and thrive.
I think I see what Edmond is getting at. The problem is that these guys who are dumped on by the system, are the very people propping up the system. I’ve known divorced men who SUPPORT feminism. Waking these guys up is a significant problem for the MM — and an essential one for the MM to resolve.
“In fact those who are using women against men, are also using women to turn men against men.”
Yes exactly… men have always been the key; getting men to police and censor other men is the ONLY way this control works. Feminism without men either wouldn’t exist, or it would be insignificant- a laughable background noise to be dismissed as the nonsense it is.
http://www.newkerala.com/news/2011/worldnews-45696.html
“My stunt double is the coolest, toughest, sweetest woman I have ever met… We’ve been working out together and it’s really inspiring to see a girl act tough around the boys,” she added.
———
How long before feminism will be considered a mental illness ?
I have noticed for years how the words man or men are never used, however, a gender neutral title is. This happens to make it seem as if women were involved in some heroic acts in which they were not.
What about if a woman is shouting….?
I am sure it will be ok for feminist law schemes.