The Public Bill Committee for the DA Bill “meet” today. They will be taking evidence today from, and only from, the following,
- Nicole Jacobs, Designate DA Commissioner
- Southall Black Sisters
- Latin American Women’s Rights Service
- Somiya Basar; Saliha Rashid
- Women’s Aid Federation of England
- End Violence Against Women Coalition
- Refuge; Safelives
- Hestia; Gisela Valle(1) , Step Up
- Migrant Women UK
- Dame Vera Baird QC, Commissioner for Victims & Witnesses
- Local Government Association
- Welsh Women’s Aid
- (1)Latin American Women’s Rights Service (LAWRS)
Absolutely no ideological bias there, then.
Subsequent “meetings” are planned for 9, 10, 11, 16 and 17 June.
You can find the amendments which have been tabled for their august consideration here.
You will find the amendments put forward by Philip Davies and Bob Stewart. Whether they canvassed for support from other MPs I don’t know – but they didn’t get any.
In contrast, the amendments tabled by the other side were supported by a cast of typically 42 MPs.
These lists of supporting MPs include two known abusers of their male partners (Sarah Champion and Layla Moran).
The amendments this crew have proposed include the following,
In any homicide which involves injuries arising from domestic abuse, even if those injuries were not the cause of death, then a charge of murder will be obligatory (neither a charge of, or a plea of, manslaughter will be permitted, thus overturning centuries of fundamental aspects of justice in regard to the significance of premeditation in murder).
Prohibition of reference to sexual history of the deceased in domestic homicide trials. (The Members’ explanatory statement includes: “This draws on the legislative measures in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to prevent rape defendants raking up or inventing complainants’ previous sexual history.” For example, if the defendant repeatedly found his wife having a threesome with two local cocaine dealers, this cannot be mentioned in mitigation – nor could her persistent sexual belittlement or abuse of the defendant himself be mentioned).
Anonymity for victims in domestic homicides. This would mean that such homicide trials would effectively become secret.
Register for domestic abuse: A register would be created containing the name, home address and national insurance number of any person convicted of domestic abuse. (Note that the NI number has implications for future employment). Specifically,
Each police force in England and Wales shall be responsible for ensuring that such listed people notify relevant police forces within 14 days if they commence a new sexual or romantic relationship. A failure to notify the police shall be an offence liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months. The police force shall have the right to inform any person involved in a relationship with such a listed person of their convictions for (quote) “an offence that amounts to domestic abuse”.
One hopes that even this Committee – or, subsequently, Parliament – will not let that through. But they well might. And it is chilling enough that a large contingent within our legislature is so authoritarian – and so lacking in any wisdom – that they can believe such measures to be desirable. This the feminist state in action.
Of the 42 or so MPs proposing these amendments, I spotted at least 4 who are also members of the Public Bill Committee itself. It is remarkable that this is permitted. One of them is Jess Phillips.
It looks like the bill is taking written evidence now.
On another note – when will these constant updates to DV laws end? It seems like they’re making changes more than once a year on an endless loop. When is it done? When are the laws ‘right’ for these people? I don’t have to be psychic to predict next year will see more proposed amendments, and the year after that, and the year after that…
A Sunset Clause should be added. Every 5 years the Bill would need to be evaluated, debated and voted on again. In the US VAWA is handled in that manner.
By watching the entirety of today’s session I feel like I’ve subjected myself to a form of sadomasochism.
Rather than raise my concerns here, as I’m sure all reading this understand what they are, I’ll instead quote the late American philosopher Eric Hoffer who made a wonderful observation that is applicable to this whole sham:
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
I have written on a number of occasions about this to my MP and he forwards the enquiries to the relevant person at the MoJ or other ministry.
Invariably the reply comes back that the appropriate organisations (FNF or Mankind, etc) are being involved and consulted. When I contact those organisations, however, they say that they have heard nothing.
The entire process is dishonest and shamelessly so; not only does the Emperor have no clothes but his entire court is stark naked, and the more attention you draw to this fact, the more they flaunt their genitals at you.
Who would be a good person to write to about the complete lack of representation of male groups? I’m going to start with my local MP, but any other ideas?
Evidence to Public Bill Committees is via firstname.lastname@example.org
I think every amendment mentioned here should come with the caveat ‘except for men’ – who will be offered no protection with any amendments, but will certainly see their ability to defend themselves or seek help pushed further and further away.
Men are a big chunk of victims, yet here again we see no representation whatsoever. And what’s with all the ‘sub’ groups now popping up to grab their extra state-funded share of the pie? ‘Southall Black Sisters’? ‘Migrant Women UK’? ‘Latin American Women’s Rights Service’? Do the laws not apply equally to everyone? Why do we need all these ‘splitter’ self-interest groups? It seems doubly ironic to see so many female oriented sub groups here when men aren’t represented at all.
Ayn Rand was amazingly prophetic on all of this, but she was wide of the mark on just how gendered and racialised it all is.
We can all see exactly where this is going. It is back to square one: all men are violent bullies, and all women are innocent victims. No other narrative is permitted, and none will be recognised. The one hope is that the more shockingly stupid, biased, draconian and dishonest such legislation becomes, the less inclined the police and the judiciary will be to enforce it and watch it ruin lives. It’s an admittedly thin hope.
The only alternative I can see is that as the the madness gets worse, it will eventually drive more and more men simply not to co-habit with women at all. That will finally get to a tipping point of societal collapse, which will force common sense to come back into circulation. But what a depressing and destructive way to have to learn anything.
Men and women are equal, aren’t they? They should be taken equally seriously, shouldn’t they?
So, why,when they want to be taken seriously, do men dress in a modest, body-covering, drab-coloured suit while the women (who constantly claim they aren’t taken seriously) dress as though they are going shopping or having friends to tea?
Office-smart please, (or men in jumpers and shorts too.)