Sunday, May 13, 2012

Why S.A.V.E. is a Hate Group -- Your SPLC in Action!

As you know, the Southern Poverty Law Center has placed the SAVE organization on its official watch list as a hate group. (SAVE stands for "Stop Abusive and Violent Environments").

And what vile offense did SAVE commit, to be worthy of such an honor? Well according to the SPLC, they are lobbying against the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Now, for the record, this "lobbying against" includes submitting an amended version of  VAWA which corrects the abuses of the traditional version. But rather than write a detailed report on exactly what hateful things SAVE would fob upon the world,  I urge you to download and read the following:


In this PDF file you will find both the relevant passages in the existing VAWA,  and the alterations which SAVE proposes to make. The information is arranged in tabular form and is very easy to read. As a bonus, they clearly explain the rationale for each amendment. 

Here is their executive summary:
"The Partner Violence Reduction Act accords first priority to victims of physical violence, curbs false allegations, removes discriminatory practices, encourages partner reconciliation when feasible, requires accreditation of educational programs, strengthens the research basis, improves accountability, curbs immigration fraud, and reinvigorates constitutional protections."
Why the nerve of these people, to publish such a heinous list of proposals! The gall! The misogyny! The effrontery and arrogance! The cruel mockery of all that is noble and decent! I think I discern a glimmer of why the SPLC  listed these people as a hate group. And the part about so-called "constitutional protections" -- surely we can't have that! Boy oh boy, am I ever glad the SPLC got on the case!

For starters, SAVE has the appalling audacity to suggest that the title of the Act be changed from the Violence Against Women Act to the Partner Violence Reduction Act.  They state their rationale brusquely as follows: 
"Title amended to avert illegal discriminatory effects."
Consistently with this, the editor goes through the entire VAWA text and substitutes the phrase "men and women" nearly every place where the word "women" occurs. So in the end, female victims lose none of the protection which the existing legislation offers. What's innovatory in the SAVE version is that protection is extended to male victims -- who, as we know, make up 50% of partner violence victims. The existing Violence "Against Women" Act fails to consider male victimization, and the SAVE group hatefully wishes to change that state of affairs. Heavens, it is no wonder whatsoever that they got onto that SPLC list!

Elsewhere in the SAVE report we find the following proposed addition to the original VAWA, in the form of a clearly stated directive that would carry the force of  law:
“Certify that all training, education, and public awareness training programs and activities, including each of its instructional manuals, curricula, handouts, and other informational content, are currently accredited by an independent Training, Education, and Public Awareness Accreditation Organization, as defined in Section 3(a)(29) of this Act; that the Training, Education, and Public Awareness Accreditation Organization is allowed to conduct audits of said training and education sessions; and that evidence of said accreditation is made publicly available on the organization’s website.”
And why in heaven's name does SAVE wish to ramrod such a dubious proposal through Congress? I suppose it is to their credit that they are forthcoming about their motivations:
"Many DV-related training, education, and public awareness programs have been found to lack accuracy, balance, and truthfulness, thus biasing the workings of the criminal justice system."
Well now! It is bad enough that SAVE wants  to correct inaccuracy, untruthfulness, imbalance, bias, and everything else feminism has worked so hard to instill upon us. Yet they would also stack insult upon injury by forcing the DV industry to operate with open books and public accountability.Oh how this grieves and sickens me! But if Morris Dees and his band of Southern Poverty Law heroes had their way, none of these abominations would be permitted.

You think it's bad so far? Well you haven't seen the worst of it yet, and I could go on all night. But study these next proposals, which effectively gut what feminism has done for non-patriarchal gender equality in the criminal  justice system:
“. .Grantees must certify that they do not endorse, promote, or follow any predominant aggressor or primary aggressor policy, except for a policy that endorses the law enforcement practice of identifying the party who first offers violence or who threatens to strike the other.”
And by what contrivance does SAVE rationalize such a moral outrage? Have a look. I'm not making this up!
"Predominant aggressor policies represent a bald form of sex discrimination."
Words fail me. Don't these people realize that under patriarchy, sex discrimination against men is impossible?  Or do they simply hate women? But wait, here is more grotesquerie:
“. . Grantees must certify that they do not endorse, promote, or follow any ‘no-drop’ prosecution policy or practice, or any other prosecution policy that does not follow probable-cause evidentiary standards."
Dear God! Don't they understand that men commit 95% of all domestic violence for patriarchal reasons, so that most men are probably the guilty bastards most of the time? Don't these sexist pigs know that just being male is "probable cause" all by itself?? Do these SAVE people seriously want to undo the good feminist indoctrination which has made this clear to police, prosecutors and judges, and helped ensure that men most always get convicted without that silly old "presumption of innocence" garbage? I don't understand how the SAVE people could even dare to show their faces after making such proposals. And yet they have the brass-faced bigotry to proffer THIS in their defense:
"No-drop prosecution policies are unethical, and have been found to place victims’ lives at risk." 
I am stunned. Simply stunned. What more can I say?

But I am ever-so-grateful that the Southern Poverty Law Center has put SAVE on a hate list so the FBI will spy on them. Bless the Southern Poverty Law Center and the FBI! And I dearly hope that Mr. Morris Dees and his wonderful crew will pull together one of their "innovative lawsuits" and knock those terrible, terrible hateful bigots permanently on their keesters, right quick!

Amen.

Labels:

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you heard of Emily's List? They seem to be doing a lot of the heavy-lifting raising contributions and promoting our enemies into political office.

Perhaps we should stick our head into that rabbit hole and see how deep it goes.

9:43 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Indeed I have heard of Emily's List.

I get their e-mailings.

E.M.I.L.Y.= Early Money Is Like Yeast.

So . . call them a "yeast infection."

One of their other functions, so I've heard, is to keep an eye on judges to make sure that they make the approved court rulings.

11:00 PM  
Blogger rkeefe57 said...

Yeah, the SPLC is the same "civil rights organization" that states on its web site:

"Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing."

Seriously, what kind of "civil rights group" conflates six of the most fundamental, constitutionally protected, First Amendment rights with "criminal acts" and "hate group activities"?

http://wp.me/pCLYZ-ce

Of course, this is also the same "civil rights group" where NOT ONE of the top executives is a minority.

In fact, despite being located LITERALLY in the back yard of Dr. Martin Luther King's home church in Montgomery, the SPLC has NEVER hired a person color to a highly paid position of authority in its entire 41 year history.

http://wp.me/pCLYZ-c6

Some "experts"

5:00 AM  
Blogger ScareCrow said...

I'll dream up some better ackronyms (sp) for the SPLC.

How about "Silly Pathetic Lawyer Corporation".

10:06 AM  
Anonymous Father Marker said...

I saw somewhere else someone suggest the term "Society for Protection from Logic and Common Sense".

1:55 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home