The latest revelation into the increasing prying of the state into our personal affairs has come with a landmark court ruling last Thursday which has now regarded the meaning of the word ‘violence’ to include much more than just domestic physical abuse.
A Supreme Court judgment has now opened the way to have such incidents as raising your voice or denying money to a partner to also come under the general heading of domestic violence.
According to an article in today’s Sovereign Independent: “The case arose when a woman applied to a local council for housing separate from that of her husband. She did so based solely on her claim that he was violent toward her. But when the council learned that he had never been physically violent, it turned her down and she appealed.” The acceptance by the court of her appeal now sets a precedent - not only is physical abuse unlawful, but almost any domestic contretemps could fall under the same category.
As Robert Franklin in The Sovereign Independent points out, “The Supreme Court’s ruling means that British taxpayers will get to provide housing for the woman, not because she’s in any physical danger; no one, not even she, claims that. No, the reason she gets a new place to live is that she says her husband shouted at her, a claim he denies. She also said he didn’t give her money for household expenses.” He goes on: “That a court should base its opinion on a definition as loose as that beggars reason. A child could imagine a hundred instances to which the words “extreme fervor, passion or fury” would apply that couldn’t conceivably be called domestic violence (or could they?). Sexual passion, excitement about a football game, anger at the government apparently could all qualify.”
This unprecedented assault on our personal lives, enacted on the back of an appeal by a woman over a non-physically violent domestic disagreement, should have been thrown out of court and dismissed, yet the judiciary has decided to make a landmark case out of it which now ‘legally’ allows potential state involvement in the micro-management of domestic lives, and also could invite an unscrupulous partner, just out ‘for the money’ to use this, almost, catch-all legislation to his or her advantage with the backing of the state.
This is appalling and to me seems to have been deliberately enacted as a means admitting more state control into our lives. How does one prove that voices were raised when no physical evidence can exist in a court of law to prove the fact unlike the visual evidence of a physical attack. Does this now open the way for each household to be bugged in order to substantiate such evidence?
This appears to me to be one more ploy in breaking up the family unit through state dictat - a practice long on the cabal’s agenda designed to deliberately create social dysfunction - when such domestic skirmishes should stay behind household doors and be addressed by the individuals’ concerned in a common law and common sense manner.
Is this another result of the enacting of the Common Purpose agenda which is just a ground-level instrument used by the cabal to bring in total state control of our lives?
To read the full article see http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=12881