…Finish MEN…

…Make MEN slave…

…To make further gender biased laws…

…Accelerate the process of misuse…

So what we need to do?

I am spending some time on it to come up with simple ways for our members to participate and mark our protest…

They are…

• Poll – One initiative is open on http://bhavyafoundation.org/
• Send protest letters
• Send protest emails
• Each blog of all members will host protest letters
• Write comments for each article
• Start collecting mass signatures against it. We will do it tomorrow at Candle Light Protest
• All websites to put flash news (blinking) on the home page

Guys believe me, at first I did not understood the seriousness of the problem. If this bill is passed then it is going to be disaster.

http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARflyer-Why-Stop-CEDAW-IVAWA.pdf

Why We Must Stop CEDAW and I-VAWA

Senator Joe Biden will soon be introducing two bills that, if passed, will worsen our domestic violence

programs and lead to family break-up:

1. CEDAW

CEDAW is a treaty promoted by the United Nations. CEDAW stands for the Convention on the Elimination of

All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. General Recommendation #19 of CEDAW addresses Violence

Against Women. The recommendation does not say anything about violence against men:

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm#recom19

If CEDAW is ratified by the Senate, then a U.N. compliance committee would be empowered to review a broad

range of U.S. domestic laws and request that changes be made. Passage of CEDAW would make it more

difficult to reform the Violence Against Women Act.

2. International Violence Against Women Act

Senator Biden’s companion bill is the International Violence Against Women Act – I-VAWA for short. IVAWA

is based on a one-sided survey by the World Health Organization that didn’t bother assess male

victimization.

I-VAWA would be used to funnel U.S. taxpayer money to CEDAW-mandated programs around the world.

More information about I-VAWA is available from the Family Violence Prevention Fund:

http://www.endabuse.org/programs/printable/display.php3?NewsFlashID=771

What Can I Do to Stop CEDAW and I-VAWA?

CEDAW and I-VAWA are based on the myth that only men commit domestic violence and only women are

victims. But research paints a very different picture: women are at least as likely as men to engage in partner

abuse: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41H3a.pdf

RADAR’s Special Reports document how domestic violence programs in the United States violate the civil

liberties of the falsely-accused, discriminate against many victims of abuse, weaken families, and harm children.

Plus, these programs are ineffective in stopping abuse and may actually place victims at greater risk of violence.

CEDAW and I-VAWA are two bills with innocent-sounding names that would break up families, harm children,

and worsen the injustices of the current system. Help get the truth out about the destructive effects of CEDAW

and I-VAWA: http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARflyer-CEDAW-and-IVAWA.pdf

And contact your elected officials today. Tell them to protect families and children. Tell them to “Vote

‘No’ on CEDAW and I-VAWA.”

Actual bill…

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h5927ih.txt.pdf

Protest…

http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20080527.php

http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARflyer-CEDAW-and-IVAWA.pdf

http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARflyer-Why-Stop-CEDAW-IVAWA.pdf

http://498amisuse.wordpress.com/category/stop-i-vawa/

Study show MEN are victims of DV

http://www.mediaradar.org/media_fact_sheet.php

VAWA Harms African-American Communities

VAWA Harms African-American Communities

STOP I-VAWA

http://www.mediaradar.org/radar_flyers.php

Though such a ground for divorce is not mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act or the secular Special Marriage Act, a three-judge bench headed by Justice B N Agrawal granted divorce in 2006 in the Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli case precisely because of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. But early this year, a two-judge bench headed by Justice Markandey Katju refused to grant divorce on that ground in the Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Manju Sharma case despite the precedent set by a larger bench.

Taking a conservative position, Justice Katju said that since the Hindu Marriage Act was silent on irretrievable breakdown, the court could not ‘‘add such a ground to Section 13 of the act as that would be amending the act, which is a function of the legislature’’.

The more controversial part of Katju’s ruling is the reason he gave for disregarding the 2006 precedent, which is normally binding upon his smaller bench. He made out that the 2006 verdict did not form a precedent because it had failed to take into account the legal position that Parliament had consciously excluded irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce.

‘‘A mere direction of the court without considering the legal position is not a precedent,’’ Justice Katju said.

In reality, the judgment delivered by Justice Agrawal’s bench did discuss the lacuna in the divorce law and it had even recommended to Parliament that irretrievable breakdown should be included in the grounds for divorce because of ‘‘the change of circumstances and for covering a large number of cases where the marriages are virtually dead’’.

If Justice Agrawal’s bench could still grant divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown even without legislative reaffirmation, it was because of an activist approach to render justice within the given constraints of law. As the 2006 verdict put it, ‘‘We have been principally impressed by the consideration that once the marriage has broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of that fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of the parties.’’

In the 2006 case, the wife had ‘‘resolved to live in agony only to make life a miserable hell’’ for the husband. In a creative interpretation, the court treated the wife’s refusal to let go of the husband despite the irretrievable breakdown as an instance of mental cruelty on her part.

‘‘This type of adamant and callous behaviour leaves no manner of doubt in our mind that the respondent is bent upon treating the appellant with mental cruelty,’’ the court said, while granting divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.

Smriti Shinde’s petition provides an opportunity to dispel the confusion caused by Justice Katju’s attempt to bypass the 2006 precedent.