Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Congratulatory email to the Prime Minister of Canada

I had sent the email off not necessarily expecting a response given the volume that likely occurs not including the spam they must get. In any event the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) did respond politely and it follows my email.
fromMike Murphy ,,
"Vellacott, Maurice Assistant 1">,
Jeremy Swanson>
date15 October 2008 17:43
subjectCongratulations on a stronger mandate.
October 15, 2008

My Dear Prime Minister:

Congratulations on the stronger mandate you have won. It is deserved. I lobbied hard in my community for the Conservative candidate, but the riding unfortunately re-elected the socialist incumbent. We did, however, narrow the gap considerably with only 1,141 votes separating Cameron Ross, the Conservative candidate and Tony Martin, the NDP (No Dads Party) representative. That is a major improvement over the election 2 years back. The Liberal finished 3rd which is also rare here.

I have also written supportive letters to The Saskatoon Star Phoenix on behalf of your member, Maurice Vellacott, who was being criticized by one of their columnists, Randy Burton, for wanting to have the Divorce Act changed to a presumption in law for equal and shared parenting on separation or divorce. That is near and dear to thousands upon thousands of Canadian fathers and their extended families who have been marginalized through the current adversarial system to seeing their children 14% of the time in a given month, if at all. This is creating a generation of children who do not have good solid male role models, and who are more prone to crime, truancy, drug use, emotional disorders, early pregnancy and other dysfunctions.

You have stated many times banning guns is not the answer to the use of these weapons by youth gangs in our larger cities. I believe you are right. The UK has one of the strictest gun laws in the world but still has a high useage of them by youth gangs. It is said many of these children do not have fathers in their lives. I also believe that changing the divorce act will help some of these children by keeping their fathers involved on an ongoing basis rather than on the sidelines. Please undertake these changes, which will be brought forward by Mr. Vellacott when parliament resumes.

It may also lessen the use of our courts and free them up for some of the more serious matters falling by the wayside without having to hire more Superior Court Judges. It could also lessen the divorce rate as there will be less incentive for the mother to file for divorce or leave given the incentive to do so will not be as prominent in a changed process. Rather, counselling services may be used with greater frequency to try and resolve the issues. I can say with great accuracy and experience it will change profoundly the social context of families and will be a positive force for future generations of our most valued resource - our children.

Michael Murphy
Sault Ste. Marie ON P6A 6J8

fromPrime Minister/Premier Ministre
toMike Murphy
date24 October 2008 14:44
subjectOffice of the Prime Minister / Cabinet du Premier ministre
hide details 14:44 (20 minutes ago)
Dear Mr. Murphy:

On behalf of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail correspondence.

Thank you for writing to share your views on a number of topics with the Prime Minister. He is always pleased to receive comments from Canadians on the important issues facing our nation. Please be assured that your correspondence has been given careful consideration.

S. Russell
Executive Correspondence Officer
Agent de correspondance
de la haute direction

Barbara Kay, A big piece of stone just fell out of the Domestic Violence version of the Berlin Wall ~ A column on a groundbreaking DV case in CA

Barbara Kay, A big piece of stone just fell out of the Domestic Violence version of the Berlin Wall

October 15, 2008, 8:43 AM by Jonathan Kay
Barbara Kay

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month and I am sure that to 99% of readers the two words "domestic violence" means violence against women. Only. The politically correct view that all domestic violence (DV) can be accounted for either by the inherent aggression and controlling instincts of men or by women's defensive reactions against those instincts is so deeply entrenched in our culture that it has become the Berlin Wall of the gender wars - or rather the war of feminism against men. In fact women initiate violence against their partners in an almost equal ratio to men. And in many cases the violence they inflict is severe (as one woman in a woman's shelter told the director, "knives make great levellers").

For all the men who have suffered at the hands of battering women, a chunk of stone just fell out of that huge gendered wall. In a taxpayer lawsuit by four male victims of DV, the Third District appellate court in California reversed a previous ruling holding that because they are not statistically situated with women, men are not entitled to equal protection. The new ruling declares the exclusion of men from Domestic Violence programs unconstitutional.

The presenting case, that of David Woods and his daughter Maegan, now in her early 20s, was compelling because the evidence was irrefutable, the worst case of gender bias in this area I have ever seen. David Woods is a handicapped man in a wheelchair, incapable of living on his own, and dependent (or was during the relevant period, the 1980s, when Meagan was a young girl) on his wife Ruth, who is bi-polar with violent tendencies. David frequently attempted to get help from a Sacramento DV agency, who always told him "We don't help men," explaining that men were perpetrators of violence, never victims, the usual mantra so clearly inapplicable to his situation. Churches and various other programs were equally unhelpful.

If David had fled with his daughter, he would have been arrested for kidnapping, unlike women with children who are offered shelter and sympathy. He would certainly have lost custody in a divorce, so neither flight nor divorce would have served Meagan's interests. Bias in the law enforcement system exacerbated the problem. In one 1995 incident, Ruth aimed a shotgun at Meagan. David managed to wrest it from her. Ruth called the police, telling them she wanted to kill her husband, but when the police arrived, they immediately handcuffed him.

People who have followed the heartrending story of the Woods family can only rejoice at this moral victory, which of course comes too late to rewrite the tragic trajectory of Meagan's unhappy childhood, but hopefully will provide a strong foundation for the reversal of the tide of gender bias the case represents.

The entrenched prejudices against men in the DV industry know no borders. California today, other states tomorrow. And Canada? The issues are the same, the right of taxpayers to equal access to services is the same, the bias in the legal system is the same, and the cultural blindness to the plight of male suffering is the same. It would be a grace note for judges here to take note of the chunk of wall on the ground, and pick up a proactive hammer. The faster this wall comes down, the better for democracy and for gender relations, soured by years of feminists' indifference to the suffering of male victims and their children.

by Rectificatif
Oct 15 2008
6:53 PM

The idea that wives or women are _always_ victims is an urban legend and a group libel against men. As BK says, it's systemic oppression of men. In divorce court, it's systemic bias against fathers. This is a long-term campaign. And Canada has been described as "the worst male-hating country on Earth," so maybe we should apply to California for protection.

by Allanbuteau
Oct 15 2008
8:31 PM

Excluding Men from Domestic Violence Programs is Unconstitutional?

This comes to us from a California Court and as I read about this victory for abused men I remain mindful of many 'discrimination' suits brought by various women over the past 50-years.

They began with a simple quest for gender equality... gaining access and even control of virtually every male orientated entity in the free world. Men and boys found themselves "Bullied" into opening the doors of traditionally male organizations, all-the-while men continued to be excluded from the Feminine organizations. To be honest while every feminist strived to belong to our Scout and Cadet Organizations, I am sure that I and my son had no real desire to be a girl guide...

But, then again we are no longer dealing with a child's organization and we are not talking about access to a male exclusive group of tea sippers. We are talking about protection against crime, an extremely violent crime that [using their figures] affects or stands to affect 1/3 of every household in Canada. Discrimination by gender is still a crime in this country.. Consider that a women fleeing a violent home with a her 12-year-old son, might also find herself refused protection or told to leave that "male" behind; and what they portray as a crime against women and children now becomes a willful and deliberate act to leave pre-adult males in the line of fire.

We have now managed to get a few in our government offices, and even the Media to admit that women and men are almost equally able to commit domestic violence and a review of their stats shows that a mother is more likely to kill her child. Still, with all that acknowledgement we find that children and men trying to escape a violent home have no place to go... NO PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW!

Shame on us for sitting back and allowing this to happen........Allan

by Invisible_Man
Oct 16 2008
12:13 PM

As a male victim of unilateral domestic violence and abuse, who has been utterly vilified without recourse due to my gender, I can attest to the revolting state of gender inequality in Canadian family law. My ex-wife attempted on several occasions to kill me, including strangling me in front of our then-three-year-old daughter. She has committed fraud, perjury, contempt of Court and aggravated assault on the same daughter. She has alienated both of our children from me; I have not been able to see them in over three years and the last time I did she told them, "your Daddy's dying."

I haven't even been able to speak to them on the phone this year. However, the police refuse to press charges; Sgt. Michel Crevier of the RCMP said (verbatim) "Well, it was a long time ago, and besides, it's only homicide." Since the police refuse to act, I am denied access to Victim's Services who said, "We contacted the Police and there has been no crime committed against you." In ten years of this Kafkaesque nightmare I have never once been allowed to appear in Court, let alone testify in my own defense; while my ex has waltzed in to ex parte "emergency" actions under false pretense in order to seize all of the matrimonial assets. Her unvalidated claims of child support arrears pass directly to punishment, without any means of appeal; consequently I receive no tax refunds or other government benefits and I'm even denied a passport.

The real kick in the testicles comes from the fact she has been admitted to the Alberta Bar and is now a practicing family lawyer. I, in contrast, have been driven continuously near suicide for ten years.

Thank you, Ms. Kay, for your fortitude in calling the system that committed these atrocities on an innocent man and his daughters the scam it is.

by MikeMurphy
Oct 16 2008
5:25 PM

Thank you Barbara for bringing this to light in Canada. A Canadian study on DV residing on this Federal Gov't website discusses on page 8 possible resources for male victims in Canada.

I cannot corroborate they exist at all anywhere in the country. They certainly don't exist in Sault Ste. Marie, ON. It may be the writer of the report carelessly entered them in the hope they exist rather than confirm it.

I too am a victim of female abuse. Mine started with my ex committing theft fraud and forgery against my former employer and destroying my career and reputation as a community leader. She didn't stop there and I had 11 years of battering after that. I had to retire from my position and then became a stay-at-home dad for 10 years feeling trapped the whole time while my ex committed the same acts in a family business that we entered into before I knew of her above criminal behaviour. She has attacked me with weapons but the worst one of all was the alienation of my children from me.

We are in a bitter and toxic divorce process but the family courts have seen fit, as they almost always do, to give her custody, turn me from a 10 year stay-at-home dad into a visitor, made me do supervised access even though she was the primary violent partner with the children and me, and she has an army of tax supported ranting feminists at her beck and call.

There clearly is no justice in Canada, as yet, but we are trying to change that. You are helping with the awareness you bring to these issues.

I am battered and bruised emotionally and physically but I am strong and fighting back.

A Fathers-Rights Activist

Victory! CA Appellate Court Says Excluding Men from Domestic Violence Programs is Unconstitutional

Victory! CA Appellate Court Says Excluding Men from Domestic Violence Programs is Unconstitutional

October 14th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks

California attorney Marc Angelucci scored a tremendous victory today as the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled that California’s exclusion of men from domestic violence violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights.

The taxpayer lawsuit -- Woods. v. Shewry -- was initially filed in 2005 by four male victims of domestic violence.

In 2007, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly dismissed the case, ruling that men are not entitled to equal protection regarding domestic violence because they statistically are not similarly situated with women.

Today the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and held:

The gender classifications in Health and Safety Code section 124250 and Penal Code section 13823.15, that provide state funding of domestic violence programs that offer services only to women and their children, but not to men, violate equal protection.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Marc E. Angelucci (pictured above left), said:

We’ve been through the daisy wheel of judicial activism on this issue. Now the courts have finally addressed the injustice, but the struggle is not over. Many taxpayer-funded programs, especially in Los Angeles, still deny men services such as counseling, advocacy, shelter or hotel vouchers, which is endangering their children.

Men pay at least half of the taxes that fund these programs and they should be entitled to services regardless of sex. I have seen the damage this does to men and kids and I will never stop fighting to end it, even if it means filing more lawsuits.

Numerous experts submitted sworn declarations supporting the plaintiffs and explaining that Domestic Violence against men is a serious but hidden problem. Children are being emotionally harmed as witnesses of the violence while their fathers are unable to get help.

Experts in the Case explained that although men report it less than women, empirical survey data consistently shows women are at least as violent as men in relationships, and that men suffer one-third of injuries.

This research is listed below. The Court's Opinion can be read at

Angelucci did fantastic work in this case--I recommend all readers send him a congratulatory email by clicking here.

The central plaintiff in the case was David Woods. The plight of David and his daughter Maegan is detailed in Marc's column Domestic Violence Lawsuit Will Help Secure Services for All Abuse Victims (Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Daily Journal, 12/28/05), which I co-authored. We wrote:

At the age of 11, Maegan tried to stop a domestic dispute between her parents. She soon found herself staring down the barrel of her father's shotgun. She watched helplessly as the trigger was pulled. She is only alive today because the gun didn't fire--the safety was on.

Maegan was abused and witnessed domestic violence in her home for most of her childhood. By age seven there had been knife attacks, punches, kicks, and more. It was hard to leave--the abuser was the one who earned the money, and the victim was unable to work because of a disability. On numerous occasions they looked for help to escape the abuse but were refused. Why?

Because in Maegan's family, the abused spouse was her father, and the battering and child abuse were perpetrated by her mother.

The California Battered Women Protection Act of 1994, codified in Health & Safety Codes Section 124250, et. seq., created funding for domestic violence shelter-based services. However, by defining domestic violence as something only experienced by women, the statutes exclude male victims from receiving state-funded domestic violence services, including shelter, hotel arrangements, counseling and legal services.

Maegan, now 21, and her father, David Woods, are the lead plaintiffs in a new lawsuit against the State of California and numerous state agencies and state-funded domestic violence service providers. Beginning in the mid-1980s, David was violently attacked on numerous occasions by his wife Ruth, who suffers from a bi-polar disorder which, in her case, creates a propensity toward violence.

On several occasions David decided that he and Maegan should get out of the house to escape Ruth's violence. However, with his disabling condition and inability to work, David had no money to provide for himself and his daughter. Numerous times he contacted a Sacramento domestic violence agency he had heard of in the media, WEAVE, but they always told him "we don't help men," and never offered him a referral to another facility. David tried churches and various programs, but all they could offer for men were homeless shelters with waiting lists. He found nothing for abused men and their children. David gave up and sank into a heavy depression.

By February 2003, Maegan began telling her father to find a place of safety from Ruth's violence. He again called WEAVE and again was told "we don't help men." Maegan, then 18, became so frustrated watching David being abused that she called WEAVE herself and insisted they help her father. According to Maegan, WEAVE said they do not help men, and that men are the perpetrators of domestic violence, not the victims.

That year Ruth finally began to seek professional help for her problems. David, loyal and a firm believer in his marriage vows, stuck by her. In January 2004, the two appeared together on the NBC's John Walsh Show and discussed Ruth's violence.

Domestic violence policies based on the woman good/man bad model kept David trapped in his violent marriage in a number of ways. The biggest reason David didn't leave Ruth was Maegan. She was frequently the target of Ruth's attacks, particularly when David wasn't around to protect her and take Ruth's blows.

Domestic violence researcher Richard Gelles, whose groundbreaking work on domestic violence in the late 1970s was instrumental in bringing the issue to public consciousness, explains that current policies often trap abused fathers like David. They can't leave their wives because this would leave their children unprotected in the hands of an abuser. If they simply take their children, they can be arrested for kidnapping. Moreover, they would probably lose custody of their children in the divorce anyway, again leaving their children in harm's way.

These cases often have tragic results. In the highly-publicized Socorro Caro murder case, Socorro often abused her husband Xavier, a prominent Northridge, California rheumatologist, and once assaulted him so badly he had to have surgery to regain his sight in one eye. Trapped and not knowing what to do or where to go, Xavier endured the abuse, once telling his wife "one day you are going to do something that cannot be undone." A short time later Socorro shot and killed three of their four children. Their baby survived only because Socorro ran out of bullets. She was later convicted and sentenced to death for the murders.

While police intervention often works for abused women, abused men understandably fear that once the police are involved, their wives will accuse them of being the abuser and it is they who will be believed. Draconian arrest policies often direct police to make an arrest, and police are often pressured to arrest the man.

The anti-male bias of police policies was evident in the Woods case. During the 1995 shotgun incident, Ruth called the police after David wrestled the shotgun away from her. Maegan yelled to her mom, "Tell the truth!" and Ruth told the police she wanted them to come because she wanted to kill her husband.

Nevertheless, when the police arrived and David opened the door to let them in, the officers immediately grabbed him by the wrist, wrestled him to the ground, and handcuffed him. They only uncuffed him after Maegan told them that it was her mother who had the gun.

Maegan told her story in Abused Man's Daughter Speaks Out--Maegan Talks About Her Childhood. Congratulations again to Angelucci for his fantastic work in this case.

To learn more about domestic violence, Angelucci suggests the following resources:

California State Long Beach Professor Martin Fiebert's summary of over 200 of the studies in an online bibliography at

Prof. Linda Kelly, 'Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse,' 30 Florida State Law Review 791 (2003)

Prof. Don Dutton, 'Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice,' Aggression and Violent Behavior, (11) 2006, 457-483

Harvard Medical School:

University of New Hampshire:

Canadian Government Report:

The work of Fathers 4 Justice and the Pain of Fathers ~ Activism in the UK

Equal and Shared Parenting ~ The Movie