Indian Husbands charged with biased matrimonial laws, such as IPC 498A, CrPC 125, Domestic violence Act, are treated worst than “Ajmal Amir Kasab”

India, May 5, 2010: “Family Harmony Society” is a Non Governmental Organization (NGO) promoting the cause of “family harmony” and “gender equality”.

This NGO was formed in 2005 in Bangalore and is having presence in 16 states and in abroad too. “We formed this NGO to protect and fight for the rights of the MEN. Everyone is concerned only about the rights of women but the society and Governments has forgotten about MEN’s right” says FHS activists.

“When there is a ministry for even animal (Animal Husbandry Ministry) why not for MEN?” asks FHS activists and demands a ‘MEN’s welfare ministry’. “In case of matrimonial disputes between husband and wife all the related laws are made heavily in favor of estranged wife, giving no chance to husbands or his parents to defend. Why husbands are treated worst than criminals and terrorist?” asks FHS activists.

Ajmal Amir Kasab was provided with free Government advocate and even though everyone knew he is guilty, enormous amount of resource of Government and Judiciary was wasted for his trial, but in case of matrimonial disputes when an estranged wife file a false complaint under IPC 498A, all the members of the husbands including females members like mother-in-law, sister-in-law and age old grandfather, grandmother are immediately arrested and sent to jail. Even minor children are not spared. What crime we have done? Are we worst than Ajmal Amir Kasab that without proving any charges we are arrested and sent to jail? Why each and every failed marriage is branded as Dowry case? Why each and every wife’s death is converted to dowry death case without an iota of proof and evidence. FHS activists had asked these uncomfortable questions to the Government.

Between 1995 to 2008, total of 2481660 males were arrested by police for all cognizable offence and the corresponding figure for male in 2008 was 2713971 which on sequential base is an increase of 9.36%. In 1995, total of 106079 females were arrested by police for all cognizable offence and the corresponding figure for female in 2008 was 168315 which on sequential base is an increase of 58.67%. “So it is clear that Women criminal are on rise but in our country MEN only are considered worst than terrorist. Why this discrimination?” Asks FHS activists.

An analysis of the National Crime Records Bureau www.ncrb.nic.in, between 1995 to 2008, shows that the suicide rate of MEN is increasing at an alarming rate compared to Women and most of it is attributed to “family problems”. “So government data itself shows that MEN are overburdened with responsibilities and Women are asking for equal rights but are not ready to share equal responsibilities. Why this third rate treatment to MEN?” asks FHS activists?

Table showing suicide data of MEN and WOMEN from 1995 to 2008
Year Male Female Total
1996 51206 37035 88241
1997 56281 39548 95829
1998 61686 43027 104713
1999 65488 45099 110587
2000 66032 42561 108593
2001 66314 42192 108506
2002 69332 41085 110417
2003 70221 40630 110851
2004 72651 41046 113697
2005 72916 40998 113914
2006 75702 42410 118112
2007 79295 43342 122637
2008 80544 44473 125017
Total 887668 543446 1431114

SIFF HOLDS WEEKLY MEETINGS

SAVE INDIAN FAMILY FOUNDATION holds interactive session
3 May 2010 No Comment

By Mandeep Puri, May 2, 2010: Save Indian Family Foundation today organised an interactive session for the media at the Leisure Valley, here this evening. SIFF every Sunday organises a similar meeting (a session) for the families who have been trapped in false dowry cases at the Leisure Valley , Sector 10 ( opposite Home Science College) from 5 P.M to 7:30 P.M.

Save Indian Family is a strong team of dedicated families comprising of victims of “misuse of 498a”and all gender biased LAW of India, including NRIs, Senior citizens who campaign and create awareness about gross injustice and abuse that happen in Indian Legal system.

The Chandigarh chapter of the Save Indian Family was started in July last year (2009) by Gaurav Saini and Nitin Gupta. At present, SIFF Chandigarh has 75 active members. SIFF till date has helped more than 250 affected families, and are still actively involved in guiding the affected families.

“SIFF is a non-funded organisation, wherein the members amicably contribute towards certain activities. SIFF everyday receives about 10 calls through the helpline numbers. The affected families are guided and educated against the misuse of pro woman laws every Sunday at Leisure Valley. The families are not only guided, but are also supported in every possible step in fighting this legal terrorism”, said Mandeep Puri, the co-ordinator, Chandigarh Chapter.

The helpline Numbers are:

9888009199, 9988293457, 9872417373, 9464389140,

SAVE INDIAN FAMILY HOLDS INTERACTIVE SESSION

Save Indian Family Foundation holds weekly session

Express News Service
Posted: May 03, 2010 at 0336 hrs IST

Chandigarh:

The Save Indian Family Foundation organised an interactive session for the media at the Leisure Valley here on Sunday evening. Every Sunday, SIFF organizes a similar session for families who are implicated in false dowry cases. Such sessions are organized at Leisure Valley, Sector 10, from 5 pm to 7.30 pm. The audience were made aware of the pro-woman laws in the Indian legal system and how such laws are being misused by certain people for vested interests. SIFF is a team of dedicated families comprising victims of “misuse of Section 498-A” and all gender biased laws of India, including non-resident Indians, senior citizens, who campaign and create awareness about gross injustice and abuse that happen in Indian legal system.

The Chandigarh chapter of the SIFF was started in July last year (2009) by two local residents Gaurav Saini and Nitin Gupta. At present, SIFF Chandigarh has 75 members. SIFF till date has helped more than 250 affected families, and are still actively involved in guiding the affected families. “SIFF is a non-funded organisation, wherein the members amicably contribute towards certain activities. The affected families are guided and educated against the misuse of pro woman laws”, said Mandeep Puri, the coordinator, Chandigarh Chapter.


links:
http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=03_05_2010_164_005&mo
de=1
>
>
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/save-indian-family-foundation-holds-week
ly-session/614291/
>
>
http://www.theindiapost.com/2010/05/03/save-indian-family-foundation-holds-inter
active-session/
>
>
http://in.news.yahoo.com/48/20100503/804/tnl-save-indian-family-foundation-holds_1.html

http://www.newspolitan.com/forum/art/india/punjab/GM6TKOJSGJAVIU5B

HIGH COURT BARS WOMAN TO ENTER IN-LAWS HOUSE

THIS IS ONE RARE NEWS AND AN EXCEPTION THAT HAS HAPPENED.

IN A COUNTRY WHICH IS DOMINATED BY THE BELIEF THAT ONLY WOMEN CAN BE VICTIMS & A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF FOLKS EAGER TO HELP WOMEN(PROMOTE MISUSE) , SUCH VIEWS ARE RARE TO SEE. THANK GOD THERE ARE A FEW HONEST AND GENUINE JUDGES STILL PRESENT IN THE JUDICIARY.

NEWS AVAILABLE AT:

http://lite.epaper.timesofindia.com/getpage.aspx?pageid=8&pagesize=&edid=&edlabel=CAP&mydateHid=02-05-2010&pubname=&edname=&publabel=TOI

DETAILS:
NO INTRUSION
HC bars woman from staying in in-laws house

Abhinav Garg | TNN

New Delhi: A woman has been restrained from staying in her matrimonial house located on the upmarket Amrita Shergill Marg by Delhi high court.Justice S N Dhingra has asked the woman to restrict herself to the cottage outhouse within the compound of the house and not to enter the main building where her estranged husband and inlaws live.
The court order came after it found that the woman had misbehaved with a local commissioner appointed by it to go and inspect the disputed premises.The woman who is the plaintiff in this case is locked in a dispute over the prime property with her husbands family.She had approached the court alleging that her husband was plotting her murder and she feared for her life.On their part the husband and his family have denied all the allegations and claimed that she wants to make their lives miserable.They have also maintained that in fact its their lives which is in danger.
While asking the husband to ensure that no obstruction is created by his family in the peaceful enjoyment of the outhouse by his estranged wife,HC sought to create a midway for the woman to be able to spend time with her son who lives with the husband.
I consider that till the rights of the parties are determined after adjudication,it would be just that the plaintiff shall keep living in the guesthouse annexe (the outhouse) and shall not interfere in the main building where the defendant and son of the parties are living,except that she can go to her sons bedroom and stay with him as per the wishes of her son and the son can also go to the guestroom annexe and stay with the mother as and when he likes, Justice Dhingra decreed.
HC also took note of the fact that the woman has a business of her own with a number of employees and a factory to boot.It said that the couple seemed to be fighting a battle of ego and took a very serious view of her act of abusing the local commissioner who had visited the house to ensure all personal belongings of the woman are taken out of the main building.
abhinav.garg@timesgroup.com dy

CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDERS AGAINST DELHI DCP

IN THE COURT OF SMT. PRATIBHA RANI,
DJIII
CUMI/
C ASJ (WEST), DELHI
***
M No. 12/09
D.N. Joshi, Advocate & Anr.
..........Petitioners
Versus
Sh. Sharad Aggarwal, I.P.S. & Ors.
.........Respondents
****
M No.3/2010
Smt. Meena Sen & Anr.
..........Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Damini & Anr.
.........Respondents
****
ORDER
An application under Sec. 12 of Contempt of Courts
Act 1971 for initiating contempt proceedings against the
respondents has been filed by Sh. D.N. Joshi and Daya Ram
Badalia, Advocates. During the pendency of this application,
another application was filed by Smt. Meena Sen and her
husband Sh. Ramesh Chandra Sen with identical prayer and
this application was also ordered to be put up with connected
matter.
2. In the present case, the short question involved is
36
whether arrest of Deepak Sen (husband), Ramesh Chand Sen
(fatherinlaw)
and Smt Meena Sen (motherinlaw)
on
10.8.2009 in FIR No.122/09 under Sec.406/498A/
34 IPC, PS
Tilak Nagar pending hearing of application for anticipatory bail,
was justified. In the instant case, though the permission to
arrest the main accused i.e. the husband was obtained on
17.6.2009 but no arrest was made and permission to arrest the
collateral accused was obtained from the DCP on 7.8.2009 and
the main accused as well as the collateral accused have been
arrested on 11.08.2009 just a day before settlement/hearing of
the anticipatory bail application by this Court.
3. Perusal of record reveals that the application for
anticipatory bail was filed on 30.6.2009. on 1.7.2009 Sh. R.S.
Goswami, Advocate for complainant Smt. Damini Chawla
appeared in Court. Counsel for the complainant took the
initiative and Applicants agreed to have meeting in the office of
Counsel for the complainant on 8.7.2009 and application for bail
was adjourned to 10.7.2009. On 10.7.2009 the Court directed
both the parties to appear before Mediation Cell, Tis Hazari
Courts on 14.7.2009 and bail application was adjourned to
17.7.2009. The matter could not be settled in Mediation Cell
but at the request of the parties, to make further efforts for
settlement, the hearing of bail application was adjourned to
4.8.2009 and then to 12.8.2009.
4. In the meantime all three above accused were
arrested on 11.8.2009.
5. In reply to application for contempt of Court, Sh.
37
Sharad Aggarwal DCP,
Param Aditya – ACP, Inspector Satya
Dev Dahiya and ASI Joginder Singh Rathi all have shown a
defiant mood that they did nothing wrong in arresting the
accused persons as there was no protection from Court. They
have raised all possible technical objections such as noncompliance
of Order 27A
CPC, Section 140 of D.P. Act and
Sec.80 CPC without realising that Order 27 CPC and Section
80 CPC applies to Civil Court and not Criminal Court. Section
140 of D.P. Act applies to acts done in discharge of duties and
not acts done in violation of law.
6. On merits, I may mention that power to arrest and
justification of arrest are two different things. The power must
be exercised sparingly. This is more so in case of matrimonial
disputes which are defiant. In such cases arrest may add to the
agony of parties and spoil the chances of reconciliation. That is
why order No.330/2007 dated 8.11.2007 was issued by
Commissioner of Police, restructuring powers to arrest in such
cases. In the case Chander Bhan Vs. State 151 (2008) DLT 691
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi laid down guidelines for arrest in
such cases. But all those were put on a side in this case.
7. Though the IO took permission to arrest but copies
thereof placed on record show that they are empty formalities.
The sanctioning authority did not care to see and find out how
the proceedings were going on, whether there was any
prospect of settlement. It did not call the complainant or her
counsel to find out if complainant was serious in pressing for
arrest of accused when hearing was listed for 12.08.2009 for
38
settlement/arguments on anticipatory bail application. It granted
permission in perfunctory
manner as if permission is to be
granted in each and every case merely on being asked. The
order is as short as 'As Proposed”. This defeated the very
purpose with which administrative instructions were issued by
Commissioner of Police and Judicial guidelines were laid down
by Hon'ble High Court.
8. The sanctioning authority did not bother to see that
if bail has not been granted, it had not been dismissed also and
efforts for settlement by both the parties was a continuous
process and date was already fixed for settlement/arguments.
After all there must have been some cogent reasons for
adjourning the bail application. The sanctioning authority ought
to have tried to find out those reasons. It did not apply its mind
to the facts of the case and acted blindly in granting permission
to arrest. This speaks volumes about how irresponsible the
DCP must have been acting in matters which are not pending
before Court.
9. The persons arrested were senior citizens one of
whom was lady. They had status in society. One of them was
arrested from his office in Jodhpur, Rajasthan. The lady was
arrested from School, she is operating, in front of her students.
The arrest caused immense damage to them.
10. What is more painful is that Sanctioning Authority
has not realised even now that matter has already been settled.
First motion for divorce by mutual consent was recorded on
18.1.2009 and petition for quashing FIR was filed in the Hon'ble
39
High Court in November, 2009.
11. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied up on Arts
and Commerce College, Pen, District Raigad Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. 1994 Cri.L.J. 172; Km. Shakuntala & Ors.
Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors. 1996 Cri.L.J. 1774; Tapan Kumar
Mukherjee Vs. Sri Heromoni Mondal & Anr. AIR 1991 SC 281;
In re Sanjiv Datta & Ors. 1995 Cri.L.J. 2910; Ms. Sophy Kelly
and Anr. Vs. Chandrakant & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1042; Afzal &
Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 1996 Cri.L.J. 1679; Union of
India & Ors. Vs. Subedar Devassy PV AIR 2006 SC 909;
Tukaram etc. Vs. Santosh Mahadeorao Sayam & Ors. 1995
Cri.L.J. 57; Sudhakar Mahadeorao Kawale Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. 1994 Cri.L.J. 735; T.M.A. Pai Foundation &
Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. 1995 Cri.L.J. 3220; and
Bank of Baroda Vs. Sadruddin Hasan Daya & Anr. (2004) 1
SCC 360 in support of his contentions that all the respondents
are liable to be punished for committing the contempt by
arresting the Applicants during pendency of the bail application.
12. In the the case Chander Bhan & Anr. Vs. State151
(2008) DLT 691, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kailash Gambhir while
expressing serious concern on the issue involved observed that
what is not comprehended by young minds while invoking the
provisions of the likes of Sections 498A
and 406 of IPC is that
these provisions to a large extent have done incalculable harm
in breaking matrimony of the couples. It has been further
observed that despite the western culture influencing the young
minds of our country, still it has been seen that Indian families
40
value their own age old traditions and culture, where, mutual
respect, character and morals are still kept at a very high
pedestal. I would like to refer to paras 10 and 1 of the report
which is as under :“
10. It has been noticed in diverse cases,
where the brides and their family members in
litigation find the doors of conciliation shut from
the side of groom and his family members only on
account of there having suffered the wrath of
Police harassment first at the stage when matter
is pending before Crime against Women Cell and
thereafter at the time of seeking grant of
anticipatory or regular bail and then the ordeal of
long drawn trial.
11. Daily, matters come before this Court
seeking bail and for quashing of FIRs registered
under Section 498A/
406 of the IPC. This Court is
of the view that it is essential to lay down some
broad guidelines and to give directions in such
matters in order to salvage and save the institution
of marriage and matrimonial homes of the
couples.”
13. Reverting to the facts of the present case, I am of
the considered view that the directions given above by Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi have been violated by the respondents.
The Sanctioning Authority is trying to justify its action. This
shows that it has scant regard for process of law and decision
of Hon'ble High Court. I find it a fit case for informing
Commissioner of Police as to how his subordinates are working.
I hope that the Commissioner of Police would personally look
into the matter and take strong action against defiant officers
under intimation to undersigned.
41
It would also be appropriate to bring this matter to the notice of
Hon'ble High Court about the insensitive attitude of the senior
police officers while dealing with such matters in flagrant
violations of the directions of Hon'ble High Court. Hence a copy
hereof be sent to the Registrar General, High Court of Delhi for
being placed before Hon'ble Mr. Kailash Gambhir, Judge, High
Court of Delhi whose Lordship showed utmost concern about
the matter and took initiative of laying down detailed guidelines
for all concerned. The applications stand disposed of
accordingly.
Announced in the open Court
24.4.2009 ( PRATIBHA RANI )
DJIIIcumI/
c ASJ(W)/Delhi
42

RELIEF FOR HARASSED HUSBANDS

HUMAN RIGHTS TRUTH IN INDIA

JUST READ THE BELOW NEWS CLEARLY STATING THE MISUSE OF LAWS & PATHETIC CONDITION OF THE CHILDREN WHERE THEY ARE BEING HARASSED IN THE NAME OF "SHITTY" DOWRY LAWS.

11 POWERFUL MEN BEATEN BY THEIR WOMEN - (LOL -- THEY FACED WOMEN EMPOWERMENT)

1.
Abraham Lincoln. According to Michael Burlingame, a history professor at Connecticut College and the author of "The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln", Mary Todd used to beat the hell out of Abe Lincoln.

1. Apparently, one time, Abe didn't put enough wood on a fire, so Mary Todd hit him with a log. Another time, Abe didn't buy the right kind of meat for breakfast, so Mary Todd smacked him in the face and drew blood.

By all reports, he hated his marriage; in 1864, he pardoned a Union soldier who abandoned the Army to marry his childhood sweetheart... and, while signing the pardon, Lincoln said, "I want to punish the young man. Probably in less than a year, he'll wish I had withheld the pardon."


2. Bobby Brown. Everyone thinks Bobby Brown used to hit Whitney Houston... but, according to Whitney herself, it was the opposite.

In an interview with the AP 10 years ago, Whitney said, "Contrary to belief, I do the hitting, he doesn't. He has never put his hands on me. We are crazy for one another. I mean crazy in love, love, love, love, love. When we're fighting, it's like that's love for us. We're fighting for our love."

Well, that DOES kind of sound like the greatest love of all. (Even better than learning to love yourself... the greatest love of all is learning to beat your husband because he got too handsy during the filming of the "Humpin' Around" video.)



3. Humphrey Bogart. Apparently, Bogart and his third wife, Mayo Mathot, used to get into alcohol-induced fights all the time. So why is he on the victims list? One of those fights ended up with her stabbing him in the back. (Not metaphorically.)



4. Christian Slater. Back in 2003, Christian Slater and his wife, Ryan Haddon Slater, got into a fight at the Hard Rock Hotel in Vegas. She threw a glass at him and it shattered on his neck, requiring 20 stitches. She was arrested for domestic battery.

The weirdest part? On Slater's medical report, only one word was highlighted. Eskimo.



5. Bill Clinton. In the biography of Hillary Rodham Clinton called "Hillary's Choice", Hillary used to routinely beat on Bill, including one time after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke.

In a stranger, earlier incident, in 1993, Hillary scratched Bill's face with her nails and left marks on his chin. That happened after she got upset following a visit to the White House by... Barbra Streisand.

The book doesn't explain further... did Bill hit on Barbra Streisand? Did Barbra's music drive Hillary to the point of rage? I'm afraid we'll never know.




6. Al Green. In 1974, a few years after he became a giant star, Al Green was at his girlfriend, Mary Woodson's, house. She was married at the time... but, naturally, she started a fight with Al when he told her he wasn't also going to marry her. (?)

To get away from the fight, he hopped in the shower... while he was in there, Mary took a pan of boiling grits and dumped them over the top of the shower door. It gave Al third-degree burns on his back, stomach and arms.

Then she shot herself with his gun... and he realized his life was out of control and decided he needed to get back to God as quickly as possible.




7. Ron Artest. Ron Artest is pure crazy. One of my favorite anecdotes ever about an NBA player is that, after his rookie season with the Bulls, Ron Artest took an offseason job at Circuit City so he could get the discount. So the fact that he attracted a female crazy isn't all that surprising.

In 2002, Ron Artest's girlfriend (who was five years older than him, and the mother of two of his children) admitted to smacking Artest around.

That happened right around the same time Ron was accused of stalking a different woman and leaving her threatening messages.

It was about two years before he started the brawl at the Palace of Auburn Hills, though... and about three years before he was suspended by the Indiana Pacers because he asked for a month of vacation time to promote a R&B album he was producing. Man I love Ron Artest.



8. But I've made up my mind. I ain't wasting no more time. And here I go again.

Chuck Finley. Chuck Finley was a professional athlete; a Major League Baseball pitcher. His wife was Tawny Kitaen, the chick from the hood of the car in that Whitesnake video. Physically, that should've been a mismatch. But she... she had the rage.

In April of 2002, while Finley was on the Cleveland Indians, after a game against the Anaheim Angels, Finley took his wife to Ruth's Chris Steakhouse in Irvine, California. They left the restaurant because she was making a scene and, according to court papers, she wouldn't stop hitting, kicking and scratching him.

She ended up getting counseling and having to make a small donation to a battered women's shelter.



9. Stephen Hawking. According to reports in 2004 (which Hawking denied), his second wife, Elaine, was abusive to Hawking... which even led to him being hospitalized with a broken wrist and cuts on his face.

See, that's why he needs to equip his wheelchair with a go-go-gadget boxing glove.



10. Lionel Richie. In 1988, while Lionel Richie and his wife, Brenda Harvey, were going through a rough patch, she caught Lionel with another woman. She started beating the hell out of him, and ended up being arrested for spousal abuse.

Overall, on a scale of one to 11, I'd give that night's karamu a four.



11. Joe Elliott of Def Leppard. Getting beat down by his girlfriend... do you think it would've been a better or worse fight than him versus his drummer?Personally, I think the latter would've been all right.

FEMINISTS AT THEIR POLITICALLY CORRECT BEST

Men seeking equal treatment = "backlash"
Women seeking equal treatment = "feminism"

Discrimination against men = "equal opportunity"
Discrimination against women = "discrimination"

A woman with grievances = "victim"
A man with grievances = "angry"

Open discussion of gender issues = "misogyny"

Men looking for equal treatment in the courts = "abuse"

Consensual sex between a man and woman = "rape"

Heated discussion between a man and woman = "domestic violence"

Women receiving preferential treatment/privileges = "equality"

A numeric majority of the human species = "minority"

Any woman = "victim"
Any man = "oppressor"
Any child = "property"

A woman talking about hating men = "empowerment"
A man talking about hating women = "hate speech"

A sexually predatory woman dressed like a hooker = "liberation"
A man with any interest in sex = "rapist"

A woman who wants to be with her children = "mother"
A man who wants to be with his children = "abuser"

A woman who forces children under her care/authority into sex = "the
child was lucky"
A man who forces children under his care/authority into sex
= "pedophile"

A shelter providing emergency services to abused women = "women's
shelter"
A shelter providing any services to abused men = "prison"

Female genital mutilation = "sexual repression"
Male genital mutilation = "acceptable custom that protects women from
HIV"

A man assaulting a women = "(domestic) violence"
A woman assaulting a man = "humor"

A man who beats his female partner = "batterer"
A woman who beats her male partner = "victim"

A disposable slave = "man"
A human being = "woman"

Hating women = "a crime"
Hating men = "'a viable political act'"

Distorting or lying about reality = "feminist analysis"

Biology = "lies"
Reality = "discrimination"

Any power a man has = "patriarchy"
Any power a woman has = "empowerment"

Pornography pleasing to lesbians = "erotica"
Pornography pleasing to men = "exploitation and degradation of women"

Person who says feminists are wrong = "hate criminal"
Woman-firster and advocator of any measure against men = "feminist"

Patriarchy = "bad"
Matriarchy = "good"

Male leader = "backwards"
Female leader = "improvement"

Pro-lesbianism and female, anti-male = "feminist ideology"
Same standards, honest competition = "unfair"

Female sexuality = "nurturing"
Male sexuality = "objectifying"

Female virgin = "pure"
Male virgin = "pathetic"

Female modesty = "noble"
Male modesty = "creepy"

Pandering to male audiences = "sexism"
Pandering to female audiences = "fulfilling a niche"

Women standing up for themselves = "empowerment"
Men standing up for themselves = "chauvinism"

Woman proud of her appearance = "confident"
Man proud of his appearance = "vain"

Innate female advantages = "complementary"
Innate male advantages = "sexist"

Women's space = "safe haven"
Men's space = "patriarchal breeding ground"

Women discussing their issues = "theraputic"
Men discussing their issues = "whining"

Female intellect = "pioneering"
Male intellect = "masturbatory"

Man obeying a women = "respect"
Women obeying a man = "slavery"

Men being sexually critical = "shallow"
Women being sexually critical = "having standards"

Female rage = "indignation"
Male rage = "insecurity"

Male abuse of power = "direct consequence of patriarchy"
Female abuse of power = "indirect consequence of patriarchy"

Unemployed woman = "homemaker"
Unemployed man = "loser"

Female indulgence = "happiness/enjoying the life"
Male indulgence = "selfishness"

ANTI 498-A & MAINTENANCE LAW CAR RALLY IN CHANDIGARH

Why Governments Love Feminism?

Feminism has very little to do with equality between the genders, and it also
has very little to do with the rights of women.
First and foremost, feminism is about various groups seeking to acquire power
and money, and to build huge self-serving empires in which millions - literally
millions - of people nowadays have a vested interest - a vested interest that
is, in fact, highly detrimental to those societies in which these people
operate.
To see how their game is played, I just want you to imagine a society - a
somewhat idealised society - wherein the women are happy to spend their days
being closely associated with their homes and their children, while the young
men and the fathers are reasonably happy to troop off to the workplace -
wherever this might be.
And, further, I want you to imagine that most of the people in this society are
mostly quite content with their situation.
In other words, it is a reasonably happy place.
And now the question that I want you to contemplate very deeply is this one.
What's in it for government?
How can government - and government workers - benefit from having to exist
within a society of people who seem to be quite happy and at peace with each
other?
On what grounds can the government say to the people, "You need more government.
Give us more tax money."
Well, clearly, in such an idyllic society, it would be very difficult indeed to
persuade the people to part with more of their own resources - acquired through
their own labours - in order to fund 'more government'.
However, if this reasonably happy society can be disrupted by some force or
other - some force that induces 'disharmony' within the population - an increase
in crime, say - then the government will find it much easier to extract a bigger
piece of the society's pie. For example, if there is an increase in crime, the
people will far more readily agree to fund a bigger police force. If the men and
women start fighting against each other, and begin to split apart, with married
couples getting divorced, then the government can justify extracting further
resources from the people in order to create a larger social services workforce
to look after the women and children who are now on their own.
And the point that I am trying to get across here is this.
Governments benefit not by the people being at peace with each other, but by
them being at war with each other in some way.
Of course, governments can benefit from many other things too, but the point
here is this. Governments clearly benefit from what I shall henceforth simply
call 'disharmony' - societal disharmony; such as crime.
And because governments have massive power in comparison to ordinary
individuals, they will tend to use this power to create more and more societal
disharmony - with much success. Of course they will do this. Why? Well, because
governments, and millions of government workers, benefit from disharmony, and
they are not going to use their huge collective force to undermine themselves -
which reducing 'disharmony' would do.
At the very least, government workers do not want to lose their funding, their
jobs, their security, their pensions etc etc etc. And so they need to be
perceived to be needed.
Better still for them, are bigger empires with bigger salaries, and much more
status and power.
After all, in this respect, they are no different from anyone else!
And, collectively, by hook or by crook, these government workers can, and will,
create the most monumental force in order to get these various benefits for
themselves; a force that the people simply cannot counter.
Indeed, it would be bordering on the preposterous to believe that such an
enormous body of government workers would not exert a force in a direction from
which they, themselves, would benefit.
After all, these people are not gods. They are human beings!
In a nutshell: These government workers want bigger empires with bigger salaries
and bigger pensions. They want more status and more power. And, collectively,
they will exert such a huge force that no-one can actually stop them from
getting these things; as the monumental growth in government over the past 120
years or so in the west has clearly shown. (Central governments have grown more
than one hundred-fold over the past 120 years.)
Now, because the main aim of feminists is to create as much disharmony as
possible between men and women in order to fund their own empires, governments
just love them; because, remember; for governments, the more disharmony, the
better.
So let us return to our rather over-simplified society, and see what happens
when married couples with children within this reasonably-happy place start more
often to divorce and to separate.
Well, typically, the men will go off and live on their own somewhere, but they
will continue working. The women, however, will have to choose some combination
of going out to work and staying at home with the children.
If the women decide to stay at home, then they must be given a source of income
by the government. This means that the government must take away money from
others in order to fund them. And, already, this means creating a whole system
of laws involving lawyers, judges, administrators, social assessors, financial
offices and various allied bureaucratic systems.
In other words, divorce and separation provide a whole plethora of benefits for
governments and their workers.
Furthermore, of course, no-one in the population wants to see women and children
left destitute, and so government now gets the benefit of some further popular
support for its endeavours. Thus, the government also wins on this score.
And, of course, the women who are put into this position with their children are
now at the mercy of the government.
In other words, they become dependent on the government; which is also great for
government.
"If you women do not vote for us, then you will get a smaller income from the
government!"
Now, of course, women who have divorced - whether or not they have children -
might instead decide to go out to work; in which case the government wins yet
again - because it now has more workers from whom it can take money through the
tax system.
In other words, encouraging divorce and separation is a winning strategy for
government.
Indeed, it is win-win all the way.
And, most importantly, this remains true whether or not the women have children,
and whether or not they go out to work. It is the growing division between men
and women that is the key to the government's winning strategy.
In summary, therefore, government has an enormous amount to gain by increasing
the divide between men and women, because this enables government workers to
justify the creation and the controlling of many large empires, they can more
easily extract higher taxes, they can tax more people, they can make more people
dependent upon them, and they can gain themselves some extra popular support.
But this is just the beginning.
Many, many further benefits accrue to the government when the close
relationships between men and women are broken apart. For example, the negative
social consequences of not having strong fathers around their children are
positively huge. These tend to impact most directly on boys, but the
repercussions reverberate across the whole of society - for decades. For
example, youngsters - both girls and boys - without fathers in the home are far
more likely to ...
... live in poverty and deprivation, ... be troublesome in school, ... have more
difficulty getting along with others, ... have more health problems, ... suffer
from physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse, ... run away from home, ... get
sexual diseases, ... become teenage parents, ... offend against the law, ...
smoke, drink alcohol and take drugs, ... play truant from school, ... be
excluded from school, ... behave violently, ... give up on education at an early
age, ... make poor adjustments to adulthood, ... attain little in the way of
qualifications, ... experience unemployment, ... have low incomes, ... be on
welfare, ... experience homelessness, ... go to jail, ... suffer from long term
emotional and psychological problems, ... engage only in casual relationships,
... have children outside marriage or, indeed, outside any partnership.
Indeed, a whole cascade of social problems - i.e. a great deal of 'disharmony' -
is generated by the effects of youngsters not having fathers around.
But, clearly, governments benefit fantastically from this; because governments
can use these enormous problems to justify even further increases in both taxes
and power.
After all, the people want to be protected from all the negative social
consequences of fatherlessness - and, of course, the victims themselves could
clearly do with a bit of extra help.
And so governments can justify (and, hence, finagle and extract) much more money
from the people in order to acquire more police officers, more prison officers,
more probation officers, more welfare officers, more lawyers, judges and other
courtroom staff, more psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, doctors, nurses,
social workers, remedial educationalists and, indeed, even more street cleaners!
- and, of course, many, many more bureaucrats to monitor and to exert control in
all of these areas.
And the increases in taxes and power that governments can suck up to themselves
as a result these negative social consequences really are huge.
And, if you can believe it, I have not yet even mentioned all those lawyers,
judges and bureaucrats who are part of the divorce system itself; together with
all those professionals who have to get involved in matters to do with alimony,
child custody and child support. Indeed, even if we forget about all the
numerous social and personal problems mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the
divorce industry itself is, nowadays, a multi-billion dollar industry.
Furthermore, of course, as far as life in the later years is concerned, breaking
down the relationships between men and women ensures that old people and sick
people are less likely to receive help from those who are close to them,
because, quite simply, fewer people end up being close to them. And this often
means that these vulnerable people are either abandoned to waste away on their
own, or they are put into care homes and hospitals - often run by government -
where the staff tend to treat them with, at best, clinical disinterest. (Indeed,
a recent report in the UK stated that the most common problems for old people
stem from loneliness and from living alone.)
Thus, one can summarise the situation as follows. Breaking apart the
relationships between men and women creates an absolute gold mine for
government. From childhood to old age, relationship breakdowns cause numerous
problems for the whole of society, but they give rise to numerous benefits for
government.
Now, all this is not to say that everything that the government does is bad -
particularly at the micro level.
Not at all.
For example, it is clearly the case that some men and women do need to be kept
away from each other. We do need our governments to help women and children who
are on their own. We do need care homes and hospitals for old and sick people.
We do need police officers and prisons. And so on.
But none of this alters the fact that the more do the relationships between men
and women break down, the more does the government benefit. And it benefits
hugely - as per above.
And you really would have to stretch your credulity to ridiculous levels to
believe that the millions of workers who are employed by government are
beavering away to destroy the huge 'social/personal/legal/financial industries'
from which they, themselves, have so much to gain.
Furthermore, we have clearly seen western governments - particularly left-wing
governments - using their enormous power over the years to encourage people's
relationships to break down.
Indeed, these governments have left almost no stone unturned in their quest to
damage people's relationships.
They have spent billions of dollars flooding the population with false
statistics concerning 'relationship abuse' of various kinds, with the legal
language being purposely distorted to make out that women are perpetually being
violated by men in some way. For example, they have fudged the definitions of
various types of 'abuse' to such a ludicrous extent that, for example,
criticising a woman's mother can nowadays be seen as an act of violence -
'domestic violence' - calling someone 'dear' as an act of sexual harassment, and
engaging in consensual sex which is later regretted as an act of rape. (The idea
behind all these things is to stir up both hatred towards men and a fear of men,
and it is also designed to encourage as many women as possible to make false
allegations of 'abuse'.) They have spent billions of dollars funding numerous
victim groups that seem to spend more time dispensing anti-male propaganda than
helping any alleged victims. They have
engaged in and/or funded numerous media campaigns designed to portray all men
as being likely to be abusive towards women and children in some way. And
governments continue to offer to women numerous incentives - financial and
otherwise - to make false allegations.
They have spent even more billions on 'welfare' to make men as redundant as
possible when it comes to women and the family. They have purposely debased and
feminised the educational system so that our young men achieve much less
educationally than do our young women - something that stymies future
relationships on a massive scale given that women tend to prefer partners who
are more educated than them. They have been discriminating against men in the
workplace at all levels (to reduce the value of men) under the spurious grounds
that women themselves were being discriminated against by men. They have reduced
the pay of men in numerous jobs controlled by government simply on the grounds
that men tend to be drawn to those jobs more so than are women, and they have
done the reverse for those jobs to which women tend more to be drawn. (The
ridiculous argument currently being tested out on the population is that,
"productivity, hard work and profit are
'old-fashioned' ways of assessing what someone should be paid.") They have
corrupted the law to such an extent that all men are now at the mercy of their
partners when it comes to false allegations of 'abuse', child custody issues and
ridiculously high alimony payouts - the idea being to tempt women into breaking
their relationships because they have little to lose and often very much to gain
by doing so - and, of course, to make men fearful of even embarking on any
long-term relationships. They have corrupted the justice system to such an
extent when it comes to the relationships between men and children that it is
now extremely unwise for men to have anything to do with children.
And, in our schools, children even as young as eight are being indoctrinated
with the feminist-inspired nonsense that men have oppressed women for thousands
of years.
Indeed, it is also now being argued - with much success - that intimates should
treat each other as if they were complete strangers. For example, Stranger Rape
is now said to be just as bad as Relationship Rape. Photographing your own child
being breastfed is said to be producing child pornography. On and on it goes.
And it seems quite clear to me that the ultimate aim is to force people to treat
each other as if they were complete strangers by putting them at some kind of
significant legal risk if they do not do so. Even a music teacher who places a
child's hands correctly on the instrument now risks job suspension and abuse
allegations.
The whole idea is to cut out, or to tarnish with suspicion, any closeness - no
matter how slight - that might exist between people.
Indeed, I cannot think of any law enacted over the past three decades that
impacts upon people's close relationships - either directly or indirectly - that
has not been designed to encourage those relationships to break down.
And, essentially, governments have been breaking down the relationships between
people so that they can elbow their way deeper and deeper into the connections -
social, personal and financial - that once bonded people together.
Furthermore, if one stands back to look at the overall picture that has been
emerging over the past few decades, two things become very clear.
Firstly, the motives of government workers in this area have precious little to
do with increasing the welfare of the people. On the contrary, these motives are
often malicious, and they are mostly to do with government workers seeking to
serve themselves in some way by causing 'disharmony'; with the phrase "divide
and rule" encapsulating much of what has been going on. (Indeed, one only has to
look at how western governments have been at the forefront of encouraging
fatherlessness - and, hence, the numerous consequent social problems mentioned
above - over the past four decades to see just how malicious they have been.)
Secondly, western governments are now so large (employing directly or indirectly
some 20% of the entire population) that government workers, themselves, now
represent the most enormous political force for 'big government'; which,
essentially, means left-wing government. As such, we really no longer live in
'democracies'.
For example, when left-wing US politicians like Joe Biden pump billions of
dollars into groups associated with VAWA, he is not just handing enormous
amounts of our money over to services that provide aid to victims of domestic
violence. He is, in fact, handing out this money to numerous groups of
government workers across America who rely on this money for their jobs and
their pensions, and who will, unsurprisingly, give their political support to
Joe Biden.
And, of course, there are millions of other government workers (school teachers,
social workers, academics etc etc) who are also going to support left-wing
government for precisely the same self-serving reasons.
(As just one example of this,many academics who rely on government funding are
going to drum up evidence to support the government's point of view, or their
funding is going to disappear.)
And, just as importantly, these millions of workers will also provide and
promote political propaganda that is designed to serve themselves; with these
government workers now so entrenched in almost every area of life that their
propaganda nowadays pours into the minds of the population from almost every
information source imaginable - even at school.
(Furthermore, of course, many billions of these dollars go directly into
providing social welfare of some kind; thus ensuring that the millions of people
who benefit from this will vote for left-wing government.)
The upshot is that the population is mostly nowadays very heavily infected with
the view that policies that promote bigger and more powerful government are the
best policies for the people; and so, of course, the people tend to vote for
them.
But the people are being hoodwinked, because they are not being told the truth.
They are being deluged with self-serving propaganda from many self-serving
sources, and the evidence that these sources are deceiving them on numerous
fronts, and in very many ways, is just irrefutable.
Indeed, I am writing this during a time in which the entire world is facing an
enormous economic crisis, and the world's leaders have just decided to bail out
various banking and financial systems with two trillion dollars of taxpayer's
money. Now, apart from the huge burden that this will place on the taxpayers,
and on future taxpayers, the economic downturn is going to result in the loss of
thousands of jobs, the pensions of those who work in the private sector are
going to be slashed - for many years to come - and many businesses are going to
flounder and fail.
But if you look at what most of the politicians on both sides of the political
spectrum are doing in order to help alleviate this situation, there is one
feature that stands out rather starkly. And it can be encapsulated in a phrase
that has been used recently by politicians time and time again across the
western world: "We must not cut public services in these most difficult times."
Well, this is just another way of saying that, no matter how bad are the
economic circumstances for everyone else, government services (i.e. government,
and government workers) must not be allowed to be affected by them. In other
words, government and government workers must be insulated from all the economic
problems. It is those who work outside of government who must bear most of the
costs.
In other words, government workers now clearly form a new protected and
privileged aristocracy - an aristocracy that is to be protected even from the
most devastating of economic circumstances.
No matter how big the crisis - and the current one is huge - their jobs and
their salaries must not be cut, and their pensions must be guaranteed through
thick and thin - regardless of the cost to everyone else, and regardless of how
much everyone else is struggling to make ends meet for themselves, for their
families, and for their futures.
But who can oppose this enormous beast of government? - this self-serving
organism?
After all, the government has hundreds of billions of dollars at its disposal -
every year - vast bureaucratic empires that invade every corner of our lives,
and millions of organised people working for it. Furthermore, it is the
government that makes the laws.
So, who can compete with it?
And who can compete with the vast resources of government when it comes to
'debating the issues' and putting across a particular point of view?
Well, there is no other organism that comes even close to being able to compete
with this governmental beast.
A hundred years ago, western governments were very small indeed when compared to
today. And, loosely speaking, the right represented the wealthy and the
ever-growing number of powerful industrialists and businessmen, and the left
represented the ordinary working people and the impoverished.
Those on the right reckoned that the people would be better served by allowing
them to get on with the job of creating wealth and power, while those on the
left reckoned that government should intervene more directly, and more often, to
help those who were the most in need.
Translated into today's world, this could be loosely described as the big,
powerful businesses being represented by those on the right, and the ordinary
people themselves being represented by those on the left.
But times have changed quite dramatically since those far-off days; and there is
now a new kid on the block.
Government itself.
And this new kid is now far more powerful than 'the businesses' or 'the people'
- by a very long way.
Indeed, not only does this new kid have the muscle power, the organisational
power, the financial power and the legal power to get what he wants, he also has
the propaganda power to persuade the people of his point of view.
And it is absolutely clear that this new kid has been using this enormous power
to serve himself.
Just take a look at how western governments have grown over the past 100 years -
or even over the past 10 years. Look at the ever-increasing tax take. Look at
the ever-increasing numbers of people employed by government. Look at the
thousands upon thousands of laws, regulations, restrictions and directives that
are annually being imposed by western governments on their own peoples.
These governments just grow and grow and grow - not only in terms of size, but
also in terms of power and wealth. And they are infiltrating themselves into
every aspect of people's lives; controlling, monitoring, regulating, directing,
stipulating, coercing - always to an ever-greater extent.
But who can stop them?
For example, who can compete with the billions of dollars that the left-wing Joe
Bidens of this world pour into left-wing causes, left-wing jobs, left-wing
benefits and, hence, into left-wing propaganda and left-wing votes for even
bigger government?
Who has the money to compete with this?
No-one, and no organisation, has a hope of competing with such a force.
Indeed, and for example, despite the fact that Americans are renowned the world
over for their almost manic belief in small government and individual liberty,
this has not stopped their federal government from growing and growing and,
indeed, from walking all over them.
And the reason for this is because western governments have grown far too
powerful.
But who can be surprised by this given that millions of government workers with
huge resources and millions of benefit recipients will tend to promote their own
interests rather than those of 'business' or 'the people'?
A hundred years ago it was all different.
The government tax take was miniscule, the rules and regulations were few, and
the numbers of government workers and benefit recipients were both small, and
so, for example, when the government handed out money to its own workers in
order to pursue some agenda or other, the efforts of these workers, their
ability to influence people, and the number of votes that the government
workers, themselves, were able to cast in elections were all relatively small in
comparison to what 'the people' could do in such areas.
But now, these government workers have around 20% of the vote, and they also
have resources that are absolutely unassailable.
Indeed, in order to drum this point home, just imagine if you had one billion
dollars annually to distribute to whomsoever you wished. And, further, imagine
that, every year, you distributed this one billion dollars to people whose work
supported some activist group. You can surely imagine just how large would be
the impact that this activist group would then be able to make, right across the
country.
Just one billion dollars will do!
But the Joe Bidens of this world nowadays distribute hundreds of billions of
dollars every year to government workers and to benefit recipients who are bound
to support 'the government' in order to benefit themselves.
(And, of course, there is no other group that can possibly compete with a
left-wing government's power to, quite frankly, 'bribe' a few million voters
with benefits.)
And the upshot has been that western governments have been able, very
successfully, to bamboozle the public into believing in - and 'voting' for -
those ideas and notions that, in fact, are mostly of benefit to government,
rather than of benefit to the people; the purposeful breaking down of
relationships being just one example of this.
Indeed, when it comes to men's issues, we have seen western governments of all
persuasions lying, fudging, deceiving, ignoring, blocking and cheating in so
many areas - always in a direction of causing more problems for men, women and
children when it comes to their relationships - that it is simply impossible to
escape the conclusion that damaging people's relationships is a major aim of
western governments.
And the reason for this is very clear.
As I mentioned earlier in connection with our fictional idyllic society,
damaging the relationships between people creates an absolute goldmine for
western governments. It is a perpetual lottery jackpot win.
And, of course, there are many other ways through which governments can
encourage relationships to break down - ways that go beyond those to do with
close personal relationships. For example, encouraging excessive immigration
causes relationships within communities to become far more tenuous and
uncertain. And, of course, the government will benefit from this as a result of
the increasing disharmony and uncertainty that this brings about. Furthermore,
the government will benefit whether the immigrants are productive or disruptive.
If they are productive, the government gets more tax dollars. If they are
disruptive, then the government can justify more taxes and more power to deal
with the ensuing problems.
Thus, excessive immigration is also win-win all the way for government.
And then there are the various laws to do with hate speech and with 'offending'
people. These tend to distance people from each other because these laws
encourage certain types of people to use the law in even the most trivial of
circumstances.
The whole idea is, clearly, to break apart as much as possible any strong sense
of cohesion and/or security that people might have with each other.
Indeed, the ways in which this perpetual lottery jackpot win can be collected is
becoming increasingly recognised and appreciated by governments all over the
world - which is why feminism, and feminist policies, are now being taken up so
avidly by them - and so quickly.
Time and time again, you can hear one politician promoting some new
feminist-inspired notion in the USA on Monday, and by Wednesday the same notion
is being proposed by another politician somewhere in Europe or Asia.
And this is because seasoned politicians and activists know very well indeed
from where their power comes. And millions of them now know that every notion -
every rule, regulation, policy or law - that encourages people's relationships
to break down always brings them extra benefits; whereas anything that will
encourage people to stay close to each other is likely to push government - and,
hence, government jobs - out of the window.
A good example of this can be seen in my piece entitled Feminists Destroy the
Planet wherein it is noted that the UK's prime minister, Gordon Brown, has
introduced a whole raft of policies to help reduce carbon emissions in order to
combat global warming - allegedly, "the most important issue of our times" -
but not even once does he address the fact that the increasing tendency for
people to live alone is having a large negative impact on the environment - in
many ways, not just through the resulting higher carbon emissions.
And the reason that Gordon Brown will not do anything to encourage people to
live together - either through his rhetoric or through his policies - is because
he knows full well that the more do people live securely together, the less will
they want government.
And, quite clearly, this want for government is far more important to him than
what he, himself, has alleged to be the "the most important issue of our times".
It surely could not be clearer. Maintaining the increasing tendency for people
to live apart is actually more important to Gordon Brown than reducing carbon
emissions - despite all his rhetoric about the latter being an issue of
planetary-wide importance.
And this must surely give you some idea of just how important to western
governments really is the breaking down of people's relationships.
Indeed, western politicians and millions of government workers would be
horrified if people started getting along too well with each other.
And this is the real reason why western governments love feminism.
It is the perfect hammer for smashing up people's relationships.
In summary:
1. Relationship breakdowns are a goldmine for government and for government
workers. Feminism is, therefore, an ideology that serves the interests of
western governments and their workers very well indeed.
2. Governments are now hugely powerful, with politicians able to give billions
of dollars every year to millions of government workers who will be very keen to
promote their own services - which they will be able to do with much success -
particularly if they adopt the feminists' main aim of breaking apart people's
relationships.
3. It is inconceivable that these government workers will not use their enormous
influence to serve themselves.
4. It is absolutely undeniable that western governments and government workers
have, over the years, poured an enormous amount of their energy, and expended
billions of dollars worth of our resources, on creating and promoting laws,
policies and propaganda that are specifically designed to make close personal
relationships difficult to create and difficult to maintain.
Indeed, the UK's current deputy leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, has
openly stated that marriage is 'irrelevant' to public policy, and she has
actually described high rates of relationship breakdowns as a 'positive
development'. (Like most feminists, she believes that stable inter-gender
relationships oppress women.)
And the only realistic conclusion that one can make is that, when it comes to
people's relationships, western governments and government workers are purposely
seeking to damage these relationships as much as possible.
END NOTES:
1. People often find it difficult to believe that government workers could be so
malicious toward their own people by supporting policies and notions that will
harm them.
And there are two things to be said about this.
Firstly, there is no question in my own mind that many of the people at the top
of government and at the top of government departments are malicious - coldly,
callously malicious. And they often know full well that what they are doing is
harming their own people. But this is of no real significance to them. In other
words, they do not care. Their only concern is to serve themselves in some way.
A good example of this is the way in which so many politicians and government
workers - who should know better - have avoided discussing the issue of
fatherlessness for so long despite the heavy toll that it has clearly been
taking on so many people and on society as a whole.
This heavy toll clearly does not matter to these people.
And why should it? After all, it gives them jobs, money, pensions etc etc etc
Another example would be the way in which educationalists have chosen over the
years to teach children to read using one of the most inefficient methods
imaginable - a method that was known to disadvantage both our boys and our girls
when it came to reading, but which was also known to disadvantage the boys much
more. It is inconceivable to me that educationalists in the higher echelons were
unaware of the degradation in reading skills that was taking place over the
years as a result of using inefficient teaching methods (i.e. the ongoing
degradation was being covered up) and it is also inconceivable to me that they
were unaware that their teaching methods were, in fact, inefficient;
particularly for the boys.
In my view, the method of teaching reading - together with a host of other
educational initiatives that have taken place over the years to the detriment of
boys - was actually designed to undermine the educational progress of the boys
relative to the girls.
And if this is hard to believe, then please bear in mind that these same
educationalists, who were for decades so concerned about the lack of female role
models in the workplace, are now saying that role models for boys in the
educational setting (e.g. having more male teachers in schools) are of no
importance at all.
Furthermore, here in the UK, we have had both left-wing politicians and
left-wing teachers recently saying that nothing should be done to help our boys
catch up with the girls. Even the so-called Equal Opportunities Commission is
saying this; e.g. see this from the Times, Stop Helping Boys, says Equality
Watchdog.
And the question that I keep asking myself is how much more evidence will it
take before people wake up to the fact that western governments - particularly
left-wing governments - are doing all that they can to undermine their own
societies - particularly their own men - and that they are doing this to benefit
themselves.
Now, I could give you many more examples which - to my mind at least - provide
incontrovertible evidence that many of those people who work for government are
malicious and self-serving, but I think I will stop here, and just point out
that the lack of concern of western governments over fatherlessness and over the
poor education of boys cannot be described as anything other than 'malicious'
when it comes to assessing their true attitudes toward 'the people'.
Furthermore, the cost to us all of failing to do anything to solve these two
particular problems amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars every year across
the western world, and it amounts to a huge amount of unhappiness for millions
of people.
Governments, however, benefit hugely from these things. And those at the top
know very well that this is the case.
(For further evidence that government workers are very often deceitful and
malicious, see my piece entitled Do Not Respect Them.)
Secondly, it is also almost certainly true that the vast majority of 'government
workers' will have no idea what harm they might be causing to people by
supporting and promoting 'government' - particularly corrupt government; which
is what we mostly seem to have nowadays Their views tend to be very restricted,
and they tend only to know what they need to know in order to do their own
particular jobs.
However, there will also exist hundreds of thousands of workers in the higher
ranks who will just push a little bit here and a little bit there in order to
gain some advantage for themselves.
For example, senior police officers will wish to impress their political
overlords by gaining as many rape convictions as possible. They will want to
earn more brownie points by proclaiming hither and thither that more must be
done to catch more rapists. And they will forever argue for more and more
resources.
And these police officers are not going to admit openly to the public the fact
that, in practice, the vast majority of rape allegations made to them are
actually false; because to do so would undermine their own positions.
And so across the western world, with thousands of senior police officers
wanting to impress their masters, and with thousands wanting more resources for
their departments, the effect of them pushing a little bit here and a little bit
there (e.g. exaggerating, misrepresenting the facts etc etc) always in the
direction of wanting a little bit more for themselves, amounts to a very large
force indeed.
And this large force can be so detrimental to society as a whole, or to a
particular group within it, that its nature can be very 'malicious' even though
the individuals who are creating this force (in this case, senior police
officers) are not necessarily intending to be malicious. They might simply be
serving themselves by, let us say, putting a certain spin on various issues.
But this is what happens in all government departments.
The people who run them want more money, more power, more influence, more
security, more status, more respect and more prospects. And so, of course, they
will tend to do as much as they can to achieve these things.
And so, quite clearly, the malicious forces that can arise from government can
be fantastically huge in their impact, even though most of the individuals who
created these forces were not intending to be malicious. They were just trying,
let us say, to further their own personal ambitions - which is something that we
all do.
In summary; there will be those at the very top who are well aware of the harm
that they are causing to people by, for example, knowingly encouraging
fatherlessness (i.e. they are malicious) but there will also be hundreds of
thousands of people, slightly lower down the chain, who will be pushing a little
bit here and there in the same direction (encouraging fatherlessness) simply in
order to maintain their empires - the empires that the malicious people above
are promoting and funding.
And the result is a really huge force that is very decidedly malicious.
2. My own view is that if we take a look at the power currently being wielded by
government, by business and by 'the people' at this moment in time, we will see
that 'the people' have a very small voice indeed - with 'men' having almost no
voice at all. And the following graphic probably represents much better than
does the graphic above how the forces from these three groups are currently
matched.
Government now has the biggest voice, and the people have the smallest. (For the
sake of simplicity, I have not mentioned the mainstream media but, by and large,
the output from the mainstream media is still very heavily coloured and
restricted by government and by business.)
Now, given that government mostly serves itself, and given that government has
virtually unassailable resources with which to do so, and given that there is,
quite clearly, so very much that government can gain (and hold on to) by
continually breaking down people's relationships, and given that we now have so
much irrefutable evidence demonstrating quite clearly that western governments
are, indeed, doing their very best on many fronts to break down people's
relationships (a 'positive development', according to Harriet Harman) it seems
to me that people must do their very best to undermine the power of government.
And the simplest way to do this is to support only those politicians who promise
unreservedly to reduce the tax take, and to oppose most vehemently those
politicians who are likely to increase it.
This typically means supporting the right rather than the left, but,
unfortunately, matters are not so simple, because times have really changed. And
there are nowadays very few politicians indeed who have much concern for 'the
people'. Those on the left are, in my view, mostly corrupt through and through -
always seeking to empower themselves and their cronies through the further
expansion and empowerment of government regardless of the cost to the people -
and those on the right are very often pandering to the wishes of big
corporations and powerful businesses. And so there is no longer any strong voice
within government circles that represents real, ordinary people.
And perhaps the most worrying part about all of this is that any politician -
left or right - who dares to stand up for 'the people' in any meaningful way
will be pushed quite quickly into relative obscurity by the other politicians
who will be receiving massive support from very powerful brokers whose only
concern is to promote the interests of big business or big government.
And so, all in all, it seems to me that there is no real representation of 'the
people' within government (and there is certainly no representation of 'men'
within it) and, further, that any representation of 'the people' that occurs
outside of government is nowadays mostly swamped by the huge amount of
self-serving propaganda (particularly from government workers) that pours out in
favour of 'big government'. And, unfortunately for us, this deluge of
self-serving propaganda is coming from people who benefit very handsomely indeed
from breaking apart and undermining people's relationships - and, indeed, by
setting them against each other.
Their overall strategy is, quite clearly, to 'divide and rule' ...
... which is one of the oldest and one of the most effective tricks to be found
in the handbook of those who wish to empower themselves at the expense of
others.

SIFF CHANDIGARH CAR RALLY AGAINST MISUSE OF DOWRY LAWS

Links to the newspaper articles covering the event of Car Rally organised by SIF Chandigarh against misuse of Dowry Laws.

http://community.webshots.com/album/576821950KtKbUF

http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=22_02_2010_163_011&mode=1

http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/view/23571/143/

http://baretnews.com/story/20100222062602001b.html

http://newsblaze.com/story/20100222062338mand.nb/topstory.html

http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/view/23592/143/

http://merachandigarh.in/chandigarh-news/save_indian_family_foundation.html

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/IE/IEH/2010/02/22/ArticleHtmls/22_02_2010_542_016.shtml?Mode=1

http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=21_02_2010_164_002&mode=1

http://oindianews.posterous.com/harassed-men-rally-under-banner-of-save-india

बेवफा कौन? देसी पति या विलायती मेम

http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/delhiarticleshow/5582202.cms

बेवफा कौन? देसी पति या विलायती मेम

फरीदाबाद ।। लंदन में रहने वाली एनआरआई महिला वैजयंती माला ने अपने पति पर बेवफा होने का आरोप लगाया है। इसके जव
पत्नी के आरोपों का जवाब देने के लिए अनिल कोर्ट में आए। NBT
ाब में मंगलवार को उनके पति अनिल यहां के सेक्टर-12 स्थित कोर्ट परिसर में सबके सामने आए। उन्होंने पिछले साल स्थानीय कोर्ट से अपनी पत्नी से तलाक के सारे सबूत पेश किए। अनिल का कहना है कि वह बुधवार को दिल्ली की पूनम से ग्रेटर कैलाश में शादी कर रहे हैं। अनिल ने अपनी पूर्व पत्नी पर गैर पुरुषों से अवैध संबंध रखने, धोखे से उनके नाम पर लाखों का लोन लेने और धमकाने जैसे संगीन आरोप लगाए हैं। इस बारे में उन्होंने यहां की पुलिस में शिकायत भी दी है।

फरीदाबाद के बुआपुर गांव निवासी अनिल का कहना है कि वह पांच साल पहले दिल्ली में टैक्सी चलाने वाले एक दोस्त के जरिये लंदन निवासी वैजयंती माला के संपर्क में आया था। दसवीं तक पढ़े-लिखे अनिल की धीरे-धीरे उससे दोस्ती हो गई। दोस्ती प्यार में बदली और दोनों ने दिल्ली के आर्य समाज मंदिर में शादी कर ली। शादी से पहले वैजयंती ने उसे लंदन चलने के लिए राजी कर लिया था और हर सुख देने का भरोसा दिया था। लेकिन अनिल इससे अनजान था कि वैजयंती तलाकशुदा है। अनिल का कहना है कि हसबैंड वीजा पर वह लंदन चला गया। वहां एक साल तक उनके संबंध मधुर रहे, लेकिन धीरे-धीरे उनके रिश्ते में कड़वाहट आने लगी।

अनिल को पता चला कि वैजयंती की 24 साल की बेटी भी है। इसके बाद वह भारत लौटने की जिद करने लगा। आरोप है कि इस बात पर वैजयंती ने उसके साथ अमानवीय व्यवहार करना शुरू कर दिया। इसमें अनिल की सैलरी अपने पास रखने, लंदन के एक बैंक से उसके नाम पर लाखों पाउंड लोन लेने और मारपीट जैसी बातें शामिल हैं। अनिल का आरोप है कि वैजयंती ने उसके सामने कई पुरुषों के साथ शारीरिक संबंध बनाए। वह उसे एक कमरे में बंद कर देती थी। कुछ लोग हर वक्त साये की तरह उसके साथ लगे रहते थे।

लंदन में रहते हुए अनिल के भाई को हार्ट अटैक हुआ, जिसके चलते वह किसी तरह यहां आ सका। यहां आने के बाद वैजयंती के साथ लंदन लौटने को लेकर झगड़ा शुरू हो गया। अनिल ने यहां के स्थानीय कोर्ट में तलाक की अर्जी दी। 3 मार्च 2009 को तलाक हो गया।

अनिल का कहना है कि उसके पास कोर्ट के सारे पेपर मौजूद हैं। जहां तक वैजयंती का उस पर लगाए आरोपों का सवाल है कि उसने फर्जी हस्ताक्षर कर हासिल किए है, तो इसकी सचाई कोर्ट की तरफ से मिले तलाक के पेपर से हो जाएगी। इस मामले में 9 मार्च को सुनवाई होनी है। अनिल का कहना है कि कोर्ट ने किसी तरह का स्टे नहीं दिया है। उसके घरवालों की मौजूदगी में बुधवार को शादी हो रही है। अनिल ने कहा कि वैजयंती ने उसकी शादी रुकवाने के लिए उसकी होने वाली पत्नी को कई तरीके से बदनाम करने की कोशिश तक की है। वैजयंती के ऐसे ही व्यवहार के चलते उसकी बेटी भी उसका साथ नहीं रहती है।

अनिल ने मुझे धोखा दिया : वैजयंती
वैजयंती ने फोन पर एनबीटी संवाददाता को बताया कि अनिल लंदन के बैंक से हजारों पाउंड का गबन करके भागा है। उसने अनिल को वहां के कॉलेज में पढ़ने के लिए भेजा लेकिन वह वहां भी नहीं पढ़ा। वैजयंती का कहना है कि तलाक के पेपर ही उसने अब तक नहीं देखा है। इस धोखाधड़ी में अनिल के दोस्त धर्मवीर और रमेश शामिल हैं। रमेश ने उसका कन्यादान किया था। धर्मवीर ने उसे अनिल से मिलवाया था। पूनम से अनिल के रिश्ते पहले से थे। वह बार-बार लंदन से फोन करता था। मेरे पूछने पर कहता था कि वह अपने दोस्तों से बात कर रहा है। उन लोगों ने उल्टे मेरे से करीब 18000 पाउंड दहेज लिया। उसके पास क्रेडिट कार्ड की सारी कॉपी है। मेरे पैसे से अनिल ने फरीदाबाद व दिल्ली में कई जगहों पर प्रॉपर्टी खरीदी है। अनिल यहां आकर लंदन नहीं लौटा, इस चलते उसे बार-बार आना पड़ता था। उसने मुझे धोखा दिया। यह सब उसने रुपयों के लिए किया।

SHOCKING STATISTICS OF INDIAN MARRIAGE SUCCESS

Shocking stats

As per current survey ...by CNN/IBN team

In India Marraige Success rates : 48%(2009)
78%(2008)

Primary Reasons(Percentage polls)

1.Ego clash -17%
2.Extra marital affairs-14%
3.498a & DV act (included monetary reasons)-58%
4.Parental Interference - 11%

PROTEST AGAINST MISUSE OF LAWS

Bangalore, Feb 15, DHNS:

Around a 100 men belonging to the NGO Family Harmony Society took out a candle light protest at the Mahatma Gandhi statue on M G Road against the misuse of gender bias laws.


The protest was against laws such as 498 (A) for dowry harassment, the Domestic Violence Act and CRPC 125, order for maintenance for wives and children. They claimed that the laws were being “heavily misused” by estranged wives to harass husbands and their family members. Further, according to information obtained by the NGO, less than one percent of cases registered were convicted under 498 (A). Their demands included making matrimonial laws gender neutral, introduce punitive action for those misusing the laws and making 498 (A) bailable.

50 MYTHS ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

READ THE BELOW LINK:

http://wemen.us/images/stories/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf

BLAME JUDGES FOR 3 CRORE PENDING CASES AND ADJOURNMENTS

Justice S N Dhingra of Delhi High Court believes that it is both judges and
lawyers who are responsible for culture of adjournment in courts. We will
come to the part where we decide who is to get more blame between judges and
lawyers, but first let’s read the news below:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/HC-judge-lashes-out-against-cultur\
e-of-adjournments-/articleshow/5511075.cms

NEW DELHI: A Delhi high court judge has blamed his colleagues for the
"culture of adjournment'' that often prolongs cases for years.

Rueing the "latitude shown by the high court'' to lawyers who plead for
adjournments, justice S N Dhingra said: "*It appears as if there is an
understanding between the courts and advocates *that come what may the
orders of trial courts refusing adjournments shall be set aside on mercy
pleas and one more opportunity shall be granted.''

*Claiming that courts often grant adjournments on "frivolous grounds'',
Dhingra said: "A separate breed of advocates has cropped up who are experts
in pleading for adjournments and dragging cases. This culture has to be
brought to an end,''* the HC noted, while upholding a order passed by a
guardianship court in a child custody dispute between a couple. The court
refused to adjourn the case when the *woman's lawyer claimed that he had
left the case files in his car which was stolen 11 days ago. *

The last line shows the cute argument by the lawyer! If you think that a
lawyer will not lie about his car being stolen, maybe you need an education
in what lawyers in India can get away with. In BMW case, the
‘well-respected’ defence lawyers who influenced a key witness and were
caught in a sting operation were fined a mere Rs 2,000 by the bar council
and were not allowed to take cases for 2 months. Long live bar councils! I
am not saying that, lawyers are.


The HC agreed with the decision of the lower court to proceed with the
hearing and close cross examination of witnesses, despite protests by the
advocate of the child's mother. "*Adjournments are sought in the name of
strikes, elections, personal difficulties of the senior or briefing counsels
or because two counsels agree to an adjournment*...

Did you read the last part… *two counsels agree to an adjournment… *so now
if you have a doubt how come your case drags on for so long, don’t just
blame other party’s lawyer; it could well be your own lawyer is a willing
party to this *adjournment game at your expense*.

This whole culture of adjournment is a major reasons why a *case or a
petition, which should be decided in two or three hearings, is disposed of
in more than 100 hearings,'' *the HC noted while dismissing the appeal filed
by the child's mother against the lower court's order.

This is a damning indictment of judiciary and judges. On one hand, prime
minister, law minister, and chief justice rue about 3 crore plus cases
pending in courts; but if a case is dragged from 3 hearings to more than
100, even god in his next avatar cannot reclaim the judiciary from sinking
down.
*Since lawyers do their job in representing their clients, the majority of
blame lies with judges in granting adjournments at the drop of a hat.*

Delhi High Court slaps fine for vexatious maintenance case on already divorced woman

Justice S N Dhingra of Delhi High Court gives a judgment which bars a woman who was having a prior mutually agreed divorce settlement from filing a fresh maintenance case on husband. The interesting part is that court slapped a fine of Rs 10,000 on the woman for filing a frivolous and vexatious case. See news below:

http://www.prokerala.com/news/articles/a110246.html

The Delhi High Court Monday slapped a fine on a woman for contempt, taking serious note of the fact that she had concealed she was employed and continued to claim maintenance from her husband, and filed cases against him despite an undertaking to court.

Justice S.N. Dhingra slapped a fine of Rs.10,000 on Manjit Kaur for concealing the facts from the court and violating the undertaking she gave in another court in Jalandhar that following her divorce she will not file any case against her husband after settlement.

"Where a person after concealing the material facts about her own employment and about the undertaking given to the court, files an application for maintenance just to harass the opposite side (husband), this amounts to violation of undertaking given by her," the judge said.

The interesting part is that per se the court is not barring woman from filing maintenance, but only referring to violation of a particular clause of the mutual divorce agreement between the ex-couple.

The court also took note of the fact that the woman was working as a teacher in a school in Jalandhar but did not disclose it before the court and claimed maintenance of Rs.3,000 per month.

Despite a final settlement between the two in 2000, the woman filed petitions against her husband and violated the undertaking that she will not harass him or his family members.

The court directed the woman to seek maintenance for herself after her retirement from her present job, and said, "Claim maintenance after disclosing pension and other income and properties to the court which she holds in Delhi or at other places."

Which means that per se she is not barred from seeking maintenance again. But why even this generous suggestion to claimant wife who is fined by court! See, your honour, one point is that HMA 25 which deals with alimony is not one-sided but gender neutral. So the court could well have advised husband to -- “retire from present job, and claim maintenance after disclosing properties and sources of income”. Just doing my bit to legal knowledge and jurisprudence he he…

http://thehimalayannews.com/?p=305

http://thehimalayannews.com/?p=305

MEMORANDUM AGAINST IPC 498A MISUSE

By Mandeep Puri

The members of Save Indian Family Foundation, a NGO fighting against the misuse of Pro-women laws, submitted a memorandum to The Director General of UT Police, S.K. Jain at the Police Headquarters, Sector 9.

On behalf of the DG, SP Operations R.S Ghumman received the memorandum and assured that adequate steps will be taken to stop the misuse of all pro woman laws especially IPC 498 A in Chandigarh.

He assures the members of Save Indian Family Foundation that the orders have already been issued to the concerned authorities and officials to investigate the matter freely and fairly, making sure that the arrest should be the last resort.

He claimed that the UT police is efficient to deal with such cases. He further claimed that no false cases will be registered and no innocent person will be put behind the bars.

Backing his claims, the SP provided the members with figures of his unit, wherein nearly 50 per cent of the cases have been amicably settled after counselling. Only in the rarest of the condition FIRs have been registered. He said that the performance of the UT police is much better than the other states where pro woman laws are being openly misused.

However, the members of Save Indian Family Foundation insisted that those misusing the laws should be penalised and simultaneous cases should be registered against the dowry givers too (DP3). They also demanded that stay arrest or a notice should be given to the accused family members so that no innocent is arrested before the trail begins.

Nitin Gupta, the secretary of the Chandigarh unit said, "We stand for Protection of Women, but against misuse of Women protection laws. These "women-protection laws", which are in essence wife-protection laws, assume that wives are always honest victims and would never jeopardize their own family life by making false claims of abuse. The draconian law, IPC Section 498A, in particular, allows the arrest of the husband and his male and female relatives, irrespective of their age, martial status or even health condition, solely on the basis of allegations of a wife, without any evidence or investigation".

"Several authorities have noted that in close to 98% of cases filed under Section 498A, there no conviction, which means that this law is misused and grossly ineffective (Reference CSR research report) and that the complaints were only filed with ulterior motives", said Gaurav Saini, who handover the memorandum to the SP.

"Noted activist Madhu Kishwar acknowledged that IPC Section 498A is heavily misused, and that a significant proportion of individuals who approach "Manushi" these days are mothers-in-law and husbands who are falsely accused. The Supreme Court of India has labeled the misuse of IPC Section 498A as "legal terrorism" (Reference: Writ Petition (civil) 141 of 2005, Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.)", added Gaurav.

Demands:

Arrest Stay or notice to the families:

If the investigating office feels that an FIR has to be registered, the family members should be given a notice of at least three days. Families are can ruined when arrested let the trail court punish if anyone is guilty.

Registration of DP3:

There is a provision, wherein taking and giving dowry is an offence. However, police are quick to register an FIR against husbands and their families for seeking dowry, but not a single FIR has been registered against girls or their families for giving dowry. DP3 complaint should be simultaneously registered.

Proper and Fair Investigation should be made.

Section 498A should be properly and fairly investigated and arrest should be the last resort. The families should not be punished even before guilt is established.

Persons who misuse IPC 498A and Domestic Violence Law should be penalized.

Misuse of the process of law not only costs the public exchequer dearly, but also destroys the personal lives of many innocent citizens. Misuse of law should be treated as a serious crime, and persons who use women-protection laws as weapons for settling personal scores in marital disputes should be severely punished.

Save Indian Family(SIF) is a strong team of dedicated families comprising of victims of "misuse of 498a" and other Gender biased Women-Protection laws like Dowry Prohibition Act, Domestic Violence Act, etc.", including NRIs, Senior citizens who campaign and create awareness about gross injustice and abuse that happen in Indian Legal system. SIF has over 20 NGOs and 50,000 individuals as its members across the globe.

Mandeep Puri is a freelance writer who can do anything with words. He has been a Tribune crime reporter, business, sport, entertainment and municipal reporter. Contact Mandeep at his blog mandeeppuri.blogspot.com or at NewsBlaze.