Massachusetts News Staff 

December 1--The Stewart case is especially noteworthy because it highlights the panoply of injustices arising from 209A’s triumph of hysteria, zealotry and disinformation over truth and justice: 

• State of mind of victim is sufficient to establish criminal liability.  
In a prior court hearing to extend the existing 209A order for another year, Judge Eileen Shaevel repeatedly intoned, "But she’s afraid of you," in response to Stewart’s protestations that he had never been accused of violence and there had been no significant contact between the parties in four years. 

• Orders are used as strategic tools. 
Stewart has never been charged with domestic violence, yet his wife’s mere claim that she is "afraid of him" is sufficient to trigger a 209A order stripping him of his parental rights. 

• Fraudulent orders enable violent women.  
Rather than receiving treatment for her violent behavior, Stewart’s wife has been treated as a victim of domestic violence. She has been given the confusing message that even though she is violent, she is a still a victim. 

• Innocent are lumped with truly violent offenders. 
No distinction is made between violations that endanger the abused and mere technical violations, such as attempting to speak to one’s children on the phone. All of Stewart’s alleged violations are of the latter kind. The penalty for violation is the same: maximum 2 1/2 years in jail and $2,500 fine–and the state legislature is on the verge of increasing penalties to five years for second offenses. There is also no distinction made between intentional, accidental, and contrived violations. Men are prosecuted for accidental contact, such as in a shopping mall, as well as contact contrived by the "victim." Stewart did not intend to violate the 209A order, he merely acted as any responsible parent would. 

• Heterosexual men are never ‘victims.’ 
Domestic violence prevention is a one-size-fits-all black box. In September 1997, Stewart was featured on a Channel 7 News report on battered husbands. For 12 years, Stewart claims he was repeatedly assaulted and terrorized by his ex-wife. Though she once assaulted him with a knife, she is classified as the victim. 

• Juries are not given complete instructions by judges.  
From 1692, when jury acquittals eventually ended the Salem witch trials, to a 1972 federal appeals court decision, juries have been empowered to vote their conscience when they believe that rote adherence to the law will result in a miscarriage of justice. The jury in Stewart’s case should have been instructed not only that Stewart is not accused of abuse, but that they should find him not guilty if they think it would be unjust to convict him. 

• Orwellian batterers programs are propaganda tools.
Perhaps the most sinister aspect of the entire Stewart affair is the catch-22 situation he faced. To avoid going to jail, he would have to admit to crimes he never committed. These so-called "batterers intervention programs" are essentially re-education camps for men, where they are indoctrinated in the evils of the patriarchy as established by radical victim-feminist ideology, and where innocent men are often coerced into confessing to crimes they didn’t commit. In these programs, typical psychobabble jargon is employed to classify innocent men who refuse to admit to their "crimes" as "in denial," or "minimizing" their abuse. Stewart’s conscience prevented him from capitulating to this pressure, and now he is paying the price for his courageous defiance. 
 

RETURN TO FRONT PAGE