Political Commentary and Opinion
Introduction
Billions have now been spent establishing shelters for battered women. Such shelters can presently be found in virtually all metropolitan areas. However, there are increasing questions about their effectiveness both in terms of cost, results, and credibility.
We think few begrudge the money spent to provide a safe haven for women and children in distress. Since long before the sinking of H.M.S. Birkenhead, our society has put the safety of women and children first. Indeed, any society that is to survive must make the safety of pregnant women and children one of its first priorities.
Today, despite every indication that crime in general is dropping, we are met with a barrage of propaganda indicating that domestic violence is an ever increasing problem. Factoids such as "One in four of American women reports that she has been physically abused by husband or boyfriend." "One third of all emergency room visits by women are the result of domestic violence." And the list of abuses seems to grow exponentially until every man is a " batterer" and every woman a "victim." Common sense has disappeared in mass hysteria.
When the source of such hysteria is sought, one major origin keeps showing up: Women who operate shelters for battered women. And underlying their utterances is an ever increasing appetite for public funding by which they make their living.
The same appetite for public funds can be seen in other such laudable enterprises as scientific research, flood relief, or any charitable organization. However, the bureaucracy resulting from such public funding always becomes bloated and drifts ever further from its intended purpose, whatever the original problem. So in part we are dealing with human nature.
Shelters now operated by ideologues
Sadly, however, in the domestic violence arena most shelters have come to be operated by women who cling fast to a specific set of political and rhetorical beliefs that demonize men. As a result, any relief or treatment such shelters provide is ideologically motivated. And for any ideology of a true believer to persist, it must be simplified so as to avoid the nasty complications of reality. The simplest solution for gender or radical feminists has been to blame men solely and entirely for all the ills of mankind.
Repeatedly we find stories of women who have gone to such shelters in an attempt to manage their own anger being told that instead they were the 'victims.' And that happens even though they admit to abusing their mates. We have found more than one story of lesbians who were afraid to go to the local shelters because their abusers worked there. Women who have simply quarreled with their mates report attempts at what amounts to brainwashing when they end up at such shelters. And there are several indications that such brainwashing succeeds in many cases.
We also hear reports from various sources that, in addition to indoctrination and proselytizing, shelters subject women who go to them to abuse and intimidation by other women who are either on the staff or staying at the shelter, and act as centers for lesbian seduction as well.
We do not think there is much public support for corrupting women's shelters into centers for feminist ideology that promotes lesbianism and hatred and strife between man and woman. Many people, of either sex, who have achieved any degree of maturity have male friends, relatives, acquaintances, or associates who have been abused or battered by wives or girlfriends. Their personal experience denies the feminist mantra that it is always the man who batters, and the woman who is the victim.
Refuge tradition turned on its head
Our tradition of providing a refuge for women and children, and taking them to that safe harbor in times of danger, has been turned on its head by current domestic violence laws. Instead, when police are called today it is the male who is jailed and barred from his home. The woman is thus left in the place where she claims to be in danger. That violates the patrimony, evolved from biological necessity, we have of providing protection for women. And if the man is removed, and the omnipresent restraining orders are effective, why is a woman's shelter needed at all?
It is a tragedy that such a noble goal has been so corrupted by a venal few for their political and personal gain. But the problem of helping battered women persists and begs for real, functional solutions.
On the following pages we examine the history of such shelters, and what has been discovered by a preeminent worker in the field. Our hope is that useful solutions to the problem of domestic violence may be implemented.
Our intent is to fix the problem, not the blame.
A candid interview with a mother who was a resident of a women's shelter in Ontario, Canada. This mother's testimony is similar to that given to Canada Court Watch by other Canadian women who have also stayed at women's shelters in other Ontario cities and towns. Contrary to what the public have been led to believe by government funded women's shelter advocates, many womens' shelters are not the place of safety for women that they claim to be, but anti-father, anti-family organizations dedicated to the promotion of lesbianism and the destruction of traditional families - all being funded by the taxpayers! Women who have experienced abuse while a resident of a women's shelter and would like to make their stories public by way of video, should contact Canada Court Watch. This will help in efforts to make women's shelters more accontable and professional and help to provide a truly safe place for those unfortunate women who legitimately need such facilities. Shelters should be providing helpful services to women, not being used by special interest groups to promote thier own agendas. Approximate running time: 45 minutes
http://www.vimeo.com/790290
Another video in the women’s shelter series in which a mother from Ontario, Canada describes her horrifying experience residing in women’s shelters in Ontario. In the shelters where she was a resident, women were beaten, robbed, intimidated and sexually exploited. Children were exposed to violence, swearing and abuse by the women and often witnessed their mothers being abused and humiliated by shelter staff. Children are being taught that being “Canadian” and respecting yourself means to hate fathers, lie to your own parents and to call the Children’s Aid Society on your mother if you don’t get your way. When is the government of Ontario going to put an end to women’s shelters being used as indoctrination centers where lesbian women prey on vulnerable women? When is the Ontario government going to make these women’s shelters accountable and professional? When is all this government funded madness going to end? Women who have experienced abuse while a resident of a women's shelter and would like to make their stories public by way of video, should contact Canada Court Watch. This will help in efforts to make women's shelters more accontable and professional and help to provide a truly safe place for those unfortunate women who legitimately need such facilities.
http://www.vimeo.com/864606
This video is another installment in the series to expose the morally corrupt women's shelter industry in Canada. This video is based on the candid interview with a young girl who was separated from her loving father and forced to stay at a women's shelter against her will. This girl tells about her experience at the women's shelter and how her rights and freedoms were violated as a result of the actions of the police, victim services, children's aid society and women shelter advocates while all the forces of the state ganged up against her loving father. When is the Government of Ontario going to put an end to the abuse of children by women shelter advocates and to make women's shelters more transparent and accountable to the taxpayers? How many more children have to be destroyed before this happens?
Women's Shelters Under Veil Of Secrecy
by Dave Brown
The Ottawa Citizen, December 1998
Reproduced under the Fair Use provisions of 17 USC Sec. 107 for noncommercial, educational use.
There's a trigger in us all when the subject of women's shelters comes up. It makes men uneasy and women defensive. That there's a need for them is abhorrent to all.
Those triggers also protect shelters from normal scrutiny. Ottawa's new domestic court is taking men out of their homes at the rate of 120 a month. The zero-tolerance approach to domestic violence includes, for most men, a restraining order meaning they can't go home, or near their homes, until calm is restored.
One would think that this would be taking some of the pressure off shelters. But the shelter movement continues to plead for more money to protect more women from more abusers who are becoming more violent. These claims can be made with impunity, because of the secrecy that surrounds shelters.
As a reporter and a skeptic, this offends my check-it-out impulse because I can't go near them. Even the suggestion of checking one out, or challenging the claims they make, pulls triggers. Particularly in women.
To most women, there are some things that have to be taken on faith, and one of them is that the number of men becoming violent against women is increasing. The facts prove it, and the facts are coming from shelters. Challenge them, and you can hear the trigger click. I heard the click in June when Senator Anne Cools challenged a shelter lobbyist appearing before the Special Joint Senate-Commons Committee on Child Custody and Access. Immediately, a female member of the committee jumped to the shelter worker's defence and tempers flared. Ms. Cools left the room. Ms. Cools, a founder of the shelter movement, is now an outspoken opponent of it.
To get the inside story, I had to find a volunteer. The one I found is a prominent Ottawa businessperson who doesn't want to be identified. We didn't tie up a bed. The idea was to check out the service being provided and get a look at the inside of a shelter.
She made her first call on a recent Tuesday at 8:30 p.m., to Nelson House. My agent was told, sorry, all shelter beds in the Ottawa area were filled. I listened as she pleaded. She said she didn't want to go home. She hadn't been abused, she was just afraid. She put on an impressive display of somebody in need of help. She was told to call back in an hour.
Her report to me after the call: "Not a very warm response. She didn't seem to care. She didn't ask questions. She just kept telling me I was out of luck. She seemed to want me to go away." In the next call, she was told to go to Interval House. She found the reception there cool. She asked for a tour of the house, saying it would make her more comfortable. The answer was no. She asked to use a bathroom, and in that way got a look at some of the ground floor. She described the building as huge. Including the woman on duty in the office, she saw five women. She didn't see or hear children. It was 9:45 p.m. The house was quiet.
"I felt unwelcome. I was told I could stay overnight and arrangements would be made in the morning to get me a lawyer and a place to stay. I had been told women could stay up to 10 weeks, and when I asked why I had to move out so quickly, there was no answer. I was asked to sign an agreement saying I would never divulge the address, and I left. All of the women I saw were members of visible minorities."
I asked my agent why she had agreed to help me. She said it was her business sense. Things don't add up, and she feels that she, as a taxpayer and an honest person, should help uncover abuses of systems. Also, she has a brother who can't see his children because his wife went through the shelter system, and he was branded as abusive without a hearing. My reporter instincts tell me the explosion in male violence is a myth perpetrated by shelters. They need it to be believed to increase their funding. Our lawmakers have believed them, and things like the new domestic court are one result. Women who report abuse can no longer recant — at least not without difficulty and time. Domestic squabbles are being mixed in with abuse, and the easiest, fastest and least expensive way for a couple to get back together is for the man to plead guilty. The violent-male statistics are exploding.
One of the driving forces behind the formation of the new court was Carroll Holland, liaison coordinator for the Gay, Lesbian, Transsexual and Trans Gender Support Group of Ottawa-Carleton. When she heard I was nosing around domestic court she delivered a large package of male-bashing material, with a warning note: "The Citizen has been very negligent in its lack of coverage of this topic. It would be irresponsible to address this topic now in anything less than a comprehensive fashion."
Among her list of accomplishments, Ms. Holland is a special adviser to the police hate-crimes unit. If similar unsolicited material had been sent to a minority group, including hers, Ms. Holland would have told the posse to saddle up.
Earlier this month I attended a meeting in the office of Crown Attorney Andrejs Berzins to outline some of the growing number of complaints reaching my desk, mainly from women who believe the new system is harmful. Being unable to speak to their partners meant they were unable to resolve disputes. There were six Partner Assault Support Team (PAST) members in Mr. Berzins' office. Among many items discussed was my agent's shelter experience.
Police officers who answered domestic calls used to act as mediators and calming agents. Now most say their hands are tied and their safest move in the zero-tolerance atmosphere is to take the man in. Marriages are being torn apart.
The day after my meeting with the PAST group, I called Lyallen Hayes, spokeswoman for Interval House, and told her the woman who dropped in Tuesday night was my agent. "I know," she said. "I was told yesterday."
She said Interval House currently houses 22 people, nine women and 13 children. Most are long term. "They can stay 10 weeks, or longer if there are problems." She repeated that shelters are unable to keep up with the increasing flow of victims.
No wonder, said my agent. Ten weeks isn't sheltering. That's storage. Shelters are publicly funded. I asked Ms. Hayes if there were ever any spot audits. Did bureaucratic bean-counters ever drop around to check out who, how many, why, and for how long?
She said that was information I would have to get from the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. I read that as a no. She also warned that my agent had signed an agreement of confidentiality. "That includes not speaking about anything that goes on in here." If found, she warned, my agent could be in trouble.
If I'd been thinking faster, I would have asked for some blank copies of that confidentiality agreement. Mr. Berzins could use some in his office.