Reimagining Our Patriachal, Harmful Court Sytems

Reimagining Our Patriachal, Harmful Court Sytems

We know the law was created by powerful men for powerful men to retain their “power over” others, especially women. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. A human centric collective tribunal approach to support perpetrators to see and own their learned patterns of abusive behaviour and to unlearn them in order to learn new healthy ways to exist our way forward. We must support those using violence and control to undergo therapy and take part in restorative justice practice with wrap around emotional and psychological support for both perpetrators and their victims.

First Nations people have answers to these questions and lived in functioning families and collectives for tens of thousands of years. To determine who perpetrators are we wholeheartedly listen to victims. We believe victims. The research is very clear that false accusations of abuse are rare but false claims that the victim is lying?or mentally ill are not rare and are a tool of a perpetrator to cover up and shut down which cause secondary trauma and abuse to victims.

We utilise transparency (rather than silencing as we gag, shame and blame victims and enable perpetrators currently). We look at the evidence of perpetrator patterns of coercive control. We already have these tools and this expertise and some systems are using the Safe and Together Model which is very encouraging but this isn’t translating into change in the culture of the courts yet as too many in there hold similar beliefs and values to perpetrators and many are there for the money and to cling to and enjoy “power over”. The culture of the courts cannot be changed just as the culture of the slave trade could not be changed, both human rights abuses, wrong from start to finish and must be abolished.

The business of the courts currently is to retain “power over” for the few, to make money for the few and to keep the wheels of the hierarchy in perpetual motion. Equality is written out of the court system in every aspect; from who writes the laws, to the application of them to bowing to judges and calling them Your Honour when many are anything but honourable unfortunately. The current business of the courts is to reinforce white colonialist privilege and patriarchy. Pale, male, stale power over cannot be reformed or reshaped, it must be fazed out like drink driving a once acceptable practice.

Healthy people have disputes and disagreeing respectfully is possible. Respectful dispute resolution happens the majority of the time. The majority of people never find themselves using the court system. If transparency and equality were the order of the day, there would be far fewer disputes and the court system would be relegated to the annuals of history where it belongs with the Salem Witch Hunts and the Spanish Inquisition and all other unjust displays of absolute power.

Good people don’t choose to harm others but perpetrators do sadly because there is a pay off for them from this behaviour choice. Transparency and mediation work for good, healthy people. Mutually acceptable solutions can be found through negotiation. A group of healthy people with respectful, human centric values and expertise can support those struggling with their choices to find solutions and continue to commit to group support rather than arbitration or enforcement with punitive measures.

Family Justice Centres or collectives already work in practice in many countries and again First Nations people can guide us to replace the current broken misogynistic family courts and racist criminal justice institutions.?Reforming the existing system really is the definition of insanity. It’s from a time of patriarchy and abuse. It’s working exactly as designed and planned.

We must work together, each individual in connection with family and community to create a new collective system built from human dignity, equality and respect - truly by the people for the people. It should function respecting equality and based on the collective understanding of ethics and write and wrong. It’s terribly simple really when tearing out all the purposeful legalese. Is it wrong? Then don’t do it. We will collectively and transparently help you to do the right thing by others and by our natural world. Violence, control and abuse is never the answer. We always model what safe, heathy behaviour looks like.

We must expose the evils of the existing system; we cannot change what we cannot see or know. Abuse breeds in silence. Silencing is a weapon of patriarchy and “power over”. We must be sorry, commit to change?and make reparations when harm is caused.

No human creation is perfect. Nature understands that collectives working together are pretty close to perfect and we are a part of the great natural world. Safe, healthy individuals create safe, healthy families and safe, healthy communities.?

Please contact me if you would like to support Victim Survivor Voice's pilot Family and Community Justice Centre.

Andrew Herbert

Industry 5.0 | Social Impact | Data Analytics & AI | UN SDGs

1 年

I'd be keen to be a part of your pilot. I went through the court system and was absolutely shocked at what I saw, I had heard stories but I was not prepared for just how dysfunctional it is where it is set up for two people who once loved each other to destroy each other through it's adversarial approach and the use of armed police to solve simple disputes between people. We need to solve our differences with mediators equipped with knowledge around trauma and internal family systems, not police armed with guns and a baton. I like that you are taking a trauma-informed view by seeking to provide psychological support for both perpetrators and victim survivors. A big challenge will be engaging in a non-adverserial way which promotes healing over blaming

回复
John Ries

Senior Statistical Programmer

1 年

On rereading, I agree with many of your points (my previous comments probably implied the opposite) and would add that in matters of divorce, child custody, and child support (what we call "family law") social workers and counselors are frequently more useful than are lawyers. But not everyone will act in good faith (especially true of abusers and social dominators, of which there are many), which means an enforcement mechanism will always be required. In a well ordered system, we expect disputes to be few, but there will always be some. Not all would live up to their agreements. Not all will understand them in the same way. And not all would be able to reach agreements, for whatever reason. This unfortunate reality will inevitably require systems of enforcement and arbitration (the traditional business of courts). We don't have to do it the way we do it now, but it will always be required, whether it be done by professional judges, justices of the peace, or councils of village chiefs. And I think we can do it much better than we have done in the past.

No change then, since 1994 ---->

  • 该图片无替代文字
Alexandra Samootin

Human Rights Advocate

1 年

What I like best about the First Nations people - are the terms of "WOMEN'S BUSINESS" and "MEN'S BUSINESS" One must respect the manner in which the First Nations people obeyed the DREAMTIME! To me Dreamtime is like International Law - it covered many little nations - and the people did not have tomes and tomes of books to read to understand and interpret the law!

John Ries

Senior Statistical Programmer

1 年

Thanks for the complement, but... No laws? No courts? Everyone voluntarily does the right thing? I don't think that is likely to work well, but I've always been skeptical of anarchism ("human nature abhors a power vacuum", is my usual maxim). I don't like libertarianism much better. In the end, a set of rules and an effective and equitable means of enforcing them and resolving the inevitable disputes will always be required ("If men were angels..."). We can certainly do better than what we have, but I think there needs to be a system (even if it's only councils of chiefs). This is a job our distant ancestors gave to kings, lords, chiefs, and elders; and is still a large part of what we reasonably expect states to do.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Janine Rees的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了