Alarming Law Passed in Canada

TheReplacement69 · 2024-02-08T17:34:22+00:00

Laws are nothing if not enforced, and enforcing this might be a nightmare.

DifficultPapaya3038 · 2024-02-08T19:49:16+00:00

I hate this stupid fucking country

shit-zen-giggles · 2024-02-08T17:57:12+00:00

I disagree with you. This law is most likely going to be a big win for men, since women's perpetration of DV is much more often non-physical but done via threats and lamentations, i.e. coersive and controlling behaviour.

This law criminalizes behaviours that women much more often engage in and that have previously not been covered under any law.

I don't mean to disarm your critizism, but this is going to come down to how it is going to be enforced. On the face of it, it has a solid potential for to improve male victims ability to get justice.

WhereProgressIsMade · 2024-02-08T20:46:37+00:00

I think I found the full text of the bill here:

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-332/first-reading

It sounds like something similar has been passed in the UK and the little digging I found indicates it hasn't had much of an impact because it takes a lot of work to gather evidence, the definitions are muddled.

To poke some holes in it: Grounding your teenager to discipline him/her seems to meet the definition of preventing a family member from seeing friends. And it could make them feel bad.

Section 5 seems to try to allow this, the problem is that it's framed as being guilty until being proven innocent.

On one hand it's good that forms of manipulation, coercion, and control are being looked at. The trouble is trying to define it in a way that doesn't criminalize perfectly healthy and normal behavior too, or leave it up to how it makes someone feel.

For example, if my wife rubs my back and I buy her flowers the next day. She cooks dinner so I cook dinner the next day. She starts cleaning up the kitchen, so I start doing some laundry. That is a type of manipulation - positive reinforcement. I don't see anything wrong with that, but yet it is in fact manipulating her.

Smeg-life · 2024-02-08T18:02:39+00:00

The first test cases will decide how it's implemented. It could also help men who have controlling and coercive partners. Ie their finances are controlled, their social circle and friendships are controlled.

It's too early to tell and I would reiterate to everyone (men and women) who are being coerced and controlled by a spouse to document it. If this law passes it would help your case a lot.

You still have the hurdle of the cops taking you seriously but it helps to be able to have it documented. Because I can guarantee it will get weaponized in family courts along with the standard 'they were abusive' that is currently used as standard.

Best to weaponize it against them before it's used against you.

jessi387 · 2024-02-08T19:10:11+00:00

Lol women are always telling men what to do

krackedy · 2024-02-08T17:42:53+00:00

Can still just break up. They can't criminalize that.

RoryTate · 2024-02-08T21:36:47+00:00

These "well-intentioned" officials always imagine that the law is like a scalpel, and that it will only cut away the unhealthy parts of society that they want it to. However, in reality the law is nothing but a giant sledgehammer, because it can't properly distinguish between normal and criminal actions when "decency" or "feeling coerced" are the vague and nebulous legal definitions being applied.

This is just another bad piece of legislation, no matter who benefits more from it in the future.

Anyway, the process is the punishment when it comes to criminal complaints, so whenever there is a new felony to charge people with, the system becomes even more ripe for abuse. For example, a vindictive man could use this new law after a breakup, to claim that he felt "financially coerced" to pay for meals and buy things for his date. Even if he loses the case, the amount of money and time the accused would spend defending themselves would make it better for them to settle immediately and pay him a few thousand up front. Nice racket I guess.

Shoeshin · 2024-02-09T02:43:03+00:00

"He was really abusive and controlling, he wouldn't let me stay over at my ex's place and emotionally coerced me by threatening a break up"

I can already see where this is going.

grandma_jizzzzzzzard · 2024-02-08T22:15:59+00:00

Jesus.

MatheusMod · 2024-02-08T18:32:54+00:00

the true faces of totalitarianism:

Top_Recognition_1775 · 2024-02-08T21:52:56+00:00

Laws like this don't have a chance in hell of being implented in any reasonable way.

What they do is simply give the police and judges broad powers that can interpret almost any social situation as somehow criminal, and then if a cop or a judge doesn't like the cut of your jib, they can throw you in the slammer for shits and giggles.

All sorts of seemingly unconstitutional, anti-democratic and fascistic laws being passed all the time, and this is just one more of them.

Feminists and "progressives" love gyno-fascism, and cuckservatives are happy to give it to them.

BurnAfterEating420 · 2024-02-08T18:55:37+00:00

this seems like it's going to impact women a lot more than men

Antarkian · 2024-02-08T23:15:48+00:00

Can you provide a translation as to how this relates to having boundaries?

rabel111 · 2024-02-09T04:44:59+00:00

This is a private members bill, not yet law by the sound of that, but in the process of being considered.

Notwithstanding that, the following part of the section provided by OP.

"that they know, or ought to know could, in all the circumstances, reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on that person."

This part suggests an objective test of what is known or should have been known by the accused, so a judge may assume an accused knew something even though there is no evidence they knew, because the judge believes that they should have known in the circumstances.

What they are "knowing" is that what they have said or done would have a significant impact on the alleged victim. Because "significant impact" could have any subjective weight depending on who is estimating that, "significant impact" is defined in the following subsection. But the definition is wide and would capture a very broad range of behaviour.

The circled part of the section provided in OP is the definition of "significant impact".

The first impact is reasonable, as it requires that the alleged victim had good reason to fear violence on more than one occasion. An objective measure of subjective fear of violence, so the fear has to be justified and supported by evidence.

The second impact is related to physical or mental health, and while physical health should require evidence of injury or harm, mental health can be a broad capture of anything from depression to anxiety. But this is not a new proposition in DV laws.

The third impact is related to every-day life, and this is where the law becomes very broad and onerous in its capture of what constitutes "impact".

"causes the person alarm or distress"

This is entirely subjective to the alleged victim and entirely based on the testimony of the alleged victim, as there is no qualifying reference to "reasonable cause" to be alarmed or distressed, or the circumstances in which alarm or distress might reasonably be expected. So even normal parental behaviour by an accused may trigger the section, with no requirement to find any intention to cause distress or alarm.

Example 1. a father who has contact with his children, and takes them to see a football game with his new partner. The biological mother may claim to be distressed or alarmed by this as she sees this as a threat to her children, and trigger the section.

Example 2. a father is offered a promotion in his employment that requires relocation. Suggesting relocation to his partner may trigger the section, particularly if the move of residence is away from the alleged victims family, friends or employment.

This is a poorly constructed law, but that's never previously stopped laws being passed. This looks very dangerous, particularly if the law is considered during a family law cusody battle.

HMikeeU · 2024-02-09T03:14:53+00:00

I don't see how this only applies to men. I still think the wording is not precise enough, since they probably meant to exclude the cases you mentioned

MoonMan_999 · 2024-02-09T08:57:15+00:00

That’s not even a free country that’s literally a dictatorship what the fuck

danielm316 · 2024-02-08T21:02:24+00:00

One more reason to stay away from Canada.

CryptidEXP · 2024-04-19T14:23:07+00:00

The law clearly states that the affected needs to be in alarm or distress...

Randumpz · 2024-02-09T03:18:56+00:00

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C3HHvUYNqUr/?igsh=MTJpOTloMzVna2t6cQ==

I made a video explaining it slightly better detail. If you don't think this is an issue it really is.

Fragrant_Original868 · 2024-02-08T22:45:51+00:00

Fuck it, I'm all for these divisive laws. Canada, the US, Great Britain, and other woke countries have had it. We've seen our best days, Marxism has won. So fine, play right along and totally disengage. Let me Marxists support the unproductive.

zarek1729 · 2024-02-09T11:04:13+00:00

Am I the only one who is seeing a reading comprehension misunderstanding here?

The bill says that it refers to events that would cause an alarm or distress that would cause an interruption in social routines. For example, an event happens that makes someone be too scared to go outside to socialize.

The bill doesn't refer to events (such as an adult conversation) that do not cause alarm or distress, but cause a change in socialization patterns.

eggincplayer2 · 2024-02-09T18:34:32+00:00

really not that alarming

Title	Alarming Law Passed in Canada
Author	Randumpz
Upvotes	383
Comments	59
Date	February 8, 2024 5:21 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1am0waq/alarming_law_passed_in_canada/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/alarming-law-passed-in-canada.1244895 https://theredarchive.com/post/1244895

Comments