~ archived since 2018 ~

House passes VAWA reforms!

avoiceformen

May 17, 2012

12 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.avoiceformen.com/updates/news-updates/house-passes-vawa-reforms/

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	House passes VAWA reforms!
Author	avoiceformen
Upvotes	12
Comments	38
Date	May 17, 2012 8:07 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ts5hq/house_passes_vawa_reforms/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/house-passes-vawa-reforms.1021609 https://theredarchive.com/post/1021609

Comments

[+]SharkSpider 14 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

It sucks that for MRA concerns to end up getting through the house, they had to be combined with pandering to overly conservative values. This is a start, but it's not good that MRA is becoming too closely associated with right wing politics. I want to be able to vote for representatives who support men's rights and who are pro-choice, in favor of gay marriage, etc.

[–]avoiceformen[S] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SharkSpider 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HowardB 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HyphyHonkey 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]damnfooldamn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]ullere 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AnonTheAnonymous 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]damnfooldamn 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Concerning Native Americans, it doesn't extend protection to Natives who are abused by non-Native spouses on tribal land which is already kinda hard to deal with since tribal police don't have very many methods for dealing with non-Native perpetrators.

Immigrants who look for government help in cases of abuse can face deportation. The U-Visa had been created under VAWA in 2000 to deal with this but this version places new restrictions on this which removes an incentive for immigrants to report abusive spouses and cooperate with police.

There was an effort by one of the reps, Judy Biggert, to add an amendment that specifically was about protection for LGBT victims of domestic violence but she was blocked from doing so.

This isn't an issue of elevating anyone or brownie points or whatever when these specific groups already are restricted and limited in their resources and the support they can get.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]damnfooldamn 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

1) The way it currently is that non-Natives cannot be prosecuted by tribal courts, even when they commit crimes on tribal lands. The senate's version would have granted tribal courts this ability (only in cases involving domestic violence). This version of VAWA, if anything, actually limits Native sovereignty even more.

2) I'm not sure what America you live in in which immigrants actually have smooth dealings with the government and that the process of getting a temp visa isn't complicated as fuck.

3) I'm not sure on the details of the proposed amendment but LGBT people do face discrimination due to their statuses as LGBT, even in cases of domestic violence. As in, yes shelters do turn away LGBT people. What's to stop a shelter from turning away a transgender woman because they don't see her as a woman, but a man? LGBT-specific shelters are very rare and this version cuts out a provision that would have provided funding to programs that serve the LGBT community in cases of domestic violence.

[–]AnonTheAnonymous 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]damnfooldamn 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]damnfooldamn 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]loose-dendrite 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]damnfooldamn1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't know of any specific incidents but according to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs,

In 2010, 5.1% of total survivors sought shelter, an increase from 2009 when 1.8% of total survivors sought shelter1. The remaining survivors did not disclose their attempts to access shelter to NCAVP. In 2010 survivors reported that 44.6% of those seeking shelter were turned away, while only 55.4% were admitted to a shelter. More survivors in 2010 (44.6%) were turned away from shelter than in 2009 (34.8%). (On page 27)

It's about LGBTQ survivors and it doesn't appear to break down who and how many were specifically turned away but the point is that it is happening. It's not as simple as going "so-and-so was turned away" due to the number of intersecting identities you have going on here. A trans woman who identifies as a lesbian may still end up being turned away. You also have to consider that the perception of domestic violence among same-sex couples differs from that of heterosexual couples.

[–]avoiceformen[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]damnfooldamn 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Immigrant victims of domestic violence are at the mercy of their abusers, who often sponsor them for permanent residency. That immigration status can be and has been used as a tool of abuse and manipulation, threatening deportation if they go to the police. And even if one is eligible for legal status, it doesn't necessarily mean that the abuser is going to file applications for them. The incentive I'm speaking of is a peace of mind that you won't be deported.

Also as for that loophole, In order to be eligible for a U visa, for example, the applicant must demonstrate that she is the victim of a qualifying crime and obtain law enforcement certification that she is helpful in the investigation or prosecution of that crime. All VAWA applications are processed through a centralized, specially trained expert unit.
I dunno why some of you think that immigrants are a group of people the US cares tons about. You think an immigrant in Arizona is going to have an easy time committing the dreaded immigration fraud that white American men fear of foreign women?

Or the LGBT community can criticize a bill that doesn't offer the protection and resources that should be afforded them and only serves to benefit straight people? Just sayan.

[–]avoiceformen[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]deadlast -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnonTheAnonymous 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SharkSpider 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]deadlast -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SharkSpider 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]deadlast0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SharkSpider1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Actually, it is. When a bill like VAWA is passed, it doesn't include step-by-step instructions for the actual policies that will come to be. The section I linked includes enough text affirming that the Attorney General defines the limitations on evidence, and they do so in accordance to whatever litterature is made available to them. They are instructed to use "any credible evidence", but this term is defined outside of VAWA.

This document sources the term "any credible evidence" as including:

The Department of Homeland Security will consider any credible evidence, including civil protection orders, police and court records, medical reports, and affidavits of school officials, social workers, and shelter workers.

All of these things are legally valid documents that can be used to prosecute the alleged abuser. In the context of a false claim, the only methods short of self-abuse involve involvement of law enforcement involving arrest or sanctions against the accused, and the existence of any evidence of this nature is enough to see charges brought against the accused.

[–]deadlast1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KKV 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]damnfooldamn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CORNDOGCOMMANDO 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AryoBarzan 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HowardB 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link