For about 2.5 years I have been watching the Men”s Rights Movement (MRM) struggle from being a backwater “Fathers have the right to see their kids too” movement to something that now encompasses a whole range of issues over which Marxist feminists and most of the political “Christian right” are passing laws to take away the rights of males and regulate them (or punish them for crimes that were not crimes yesterday).
To me, the most serious issue of all has been the IMBRA law, which the feminists cynically named the “International Marriage Broker Regulation Act.” The law forces American men to be background checked if they want a for-profit dating site or agency to allow them to communicate in any manner with a foreign woman. This violates the Right to Assemble of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, especially because there is a “written signature” clause in the law that forces foreign women, who might not have email, to approve of contact with specific males only via a written signature. This takes away the rights of foreign women to broadcast their own contact information in any manner they see fit.
In any event, most observers of the MRM have heard much less about IMBRA than they have heard vast and valid complaints about something called VAWA or the Violence Against Women Act (which IMBRA is a part of). The main complaint about VAWA is that it encourages all women, especially foreign born wives, to fraudulently accuse their husbands of abuse and benefit greatly from the fraud.
Enter a lawyer from New York City named Roy Den Hollander. In February 2008, Roy challenged VAWA as the plaintiff and the lawyer (a smart move in and of itself because men are not contributing any money to each other’s dreams of challenging feminist laws). He said that a stripper from Russia tricked him into marriage and then used false abuse claims under VAWA to get a stripping job in the USA. He seemed to make it clear that actual sex traffickers were involved in this criminality…but there was one thing he failed to do in my mind and in the mind of the Clintonite left wing feminist judge William H. Pauley III:
He seems to have failed to clearly show how the false accusations of the VAWA process causes irreparable harm to men.
Den Hollander did not show how restraining orders involved will always show up on sensitive background checks such as the one that IMBRA demands before a man can meet a new foreign female acquaintance.
Last February, Roy Den Hollander refused to add mention of IMBRA to his complaint, which was just dismissed by the castrated William H Pauley III on December 3, 2008 for not having shown evidence of VAWA;s lasting harm to the plaintiff (plus three co-plaintiffs who joined last July).
The eunuch Judge William Pauley actually admitted that VAWA proceedings are secret and excluded the accused from participating. He then had the nerve to say that, THEREFORE, the accused would never be harmed from all the secret deliberations and conclusions!
When the judge put it that way, he was kind of right. The judge said that VAWA proceedings are sealed and few would be allowed to find out that the man was ever accused of abuse.
Maybe…except aren’t restraining orders required to be reported on in background checks?
At least I know that the IMBRA law requires that information on restraining orders be sent to women who then have to sign in writing that a particular man can say hello to them.
While there are probably other ways for a man to prove that being falsely accused of abuse in a secret VAWA court can cause irreparable harm, the only one I can think of is that, under the IMBRA requirements, most foreign women would refuse to communicate with a man whose background report is sent to her first stating that he has had a restraining order placed on him by a previous foreign wife.
QED: The Den Hollander VAWA Challenge and any future challenge against VAWA needs to mention IMBRA as the means in which irrreparable harm is done to men falsely accused under VAWA.
I will be honest: Although I was effective in getting major MRAs interested in writing long articles about the evils of the IMBRA law (Glenn Sacks, David Usher, Marc Rudov), for the past 1.5 years everyone seems to have placed IMBRA on the back burner. Marc Rudov told me that he felt that talking about IMBRA on TV would actually hurt the men’s rights cause because he felt that the men who watch Fox News do not believe in premarital sex and would believe that “marriage agencies” are really all about American men conducting sex tourism in foreign lands.
Meanwhile, not one American citizen has challenged IMBRA as having violated his or her personal right to assembly.
Den Hollander can still appeal the lower court decision to the mostly Republican judges above Pauley. He can say he would have proved harm was done in a trial. He can say that it should be obvious that restraining orders cause irreparable harm. Everyone knows that restraining orders are a dangerous black mark in the USA today. He can say that every judge should have known that laws like IMBRA use restraining orders to ruin a man’s future happiness by blocking contact with potential future girlfriends and wives.
We will see whether there is an appeal.
Meanwhile, let everyone note that IMBRA is part of VAWA. VAWA and IMBRA are part of the same anti-male mindset.
The next VAWA challenger needs to keep IMBRA front and center in the challenge. It is a clear and present danger to anyone who has ever been falsely accused.
The right to say hello to a new woman is more important than complaining about having been defrauded by the old woman.
What I feel needs to happen is that we all organize to fight VAWA and IMBRA together and, for Heaven’s sake, let anyone who is embarrassed that some men date gorgeous young foreign women understand that this embarrassment itself is anti-male. Most divorced single men want to date and marry women who are still in their twenties and thirties so they can have babies. No male should be embarrassed about this fact.
We should not have to throw IMBRA opponents under the bus in order to get people like the Concerned Women of America to oppose VAWA in general. “Concerned women” on our side need to stick up for our rights to date whomever we want that is adult. IMBRA is part of VAWA and needs to go.
The feminists were motivated to get VAWA and IMBRA passed because most of the heterosexuals among them were abandoned by males long ago and they are furious that any male might find happiness with someone younger, friendlier, less feminist and more attractive than they are.
If anyone doubts what I just said, two cases in point are SOS Hillary Clinton and Senator Maria Cantwell.
There is nothing to be embarrassed about being a man who likes attractive anti-feminist women.
And, even if an older woman does not appreciate men dating younger women, she must not and cannot deny their inalienable RIGHT to say hello to foreign adult women on foreign soil (which means via the Internet or an agency if need be).
Before Hillary becomes Secretary of State for real, let us organize to get IMBRA and much of VAWA on restraining order from a Republican judge as soon as possible. Our complaint needs to be written so it can be easily used before an appeals court in case we receive another eunuch Clintonite judge at the district level again (we in the MRM keep getting Clintonite judges on the few complaints that have been filed).
