Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[40]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[41]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[40]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-19 21:11:46.551
	1	+2016-11-19 21:11:46.0

Caselist.CitesClass[41]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,15 @@
	1	+First, the term “domestic” creates hetero-normative tendencies excluding LGBT victims~-~-- the domestic violence laws in California proves. Fountain 2:
	2	+Kim Fountain et al PH.D, Deputy Director New York City Anti-Violence Project, "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Domestic violence in the united states in 2008" The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs www.avp.org/documents/2008NCAVPLGBTQDVReportFINAL.pdf FD
	3	+―Intimate Partner Violence‖ and ―Domestic Violence‖ - Distinctions Between the Terms Use of the term “domestic violence” to describe violence in LGBTQ intimate relationships has been disfavored by some feminist researchers. They contend that the language of “domesticity” reflects the patriarchy and hetero-normative tendencies of the law from which it springs, obscuring the dimensions of gender and power at play. These tendencies have various expressions in state law, but even those with provisions around LGBTQ intimate partnerships tend exhibit some form of sanctioned discrimination in either text or practice. For example, in order to access a legal remedy under California‟s Domestic Violence Protection Act (“DVPA”), one must fall into one of the Act‟s categories of “protected persons,” as well as demonstrate, to the Court‟s satisfaction, “reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse.” Categories of “protected persons” under the Act include being the Spouse, Cohabitant, Co-parent, Child, or Blood relative to the alleged perpetrator, or sharing a Dating or Engagement Relationship with the alleged perpetrator. Thus, there is no conduct which alone is sufficient to satisfy the extension of domestic civil protection orders; whatever proofs the alleged victim provides of a past act (or acts) of abuse by the alleged perpetrator, no protection order will be granted without establishing also that the relationship between the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator is one which the Act anticipated in crafting the law.
	4	+
	5	+That turns case because LGBTQ intimate partnerships are excluded from this frame of consideration, so they aren’t protected, increasing discriminatory abuse.
	6	+Second, the term “domestic” justifies continued violence against the victim because it “domesticizes” the private sphere, which makes laws more hesitant and less effective. Rivera:
	7	+Jenny Rivera Professor of Law at the City University of New York Violence Against Women Act and the Construction of Multiple Consciousness in the Civil Rights and Feminist Movement,”, 1995. FD
	8	+Violence against women by intimate partners is commonly referred to as “domestic violence.” In previous articles, I have voiced my opposition to the use of the word “domestic” as a qualifier for this category of violence because it characterizes violence against women by current and former spouces and lovers as sufficiently distinct from all other forms of violence so as to justify wholly different, sometimes, inadequate, sanctioning of such violence. See Jenny Rivera, Domestic Violence Against Latinas by Latino Males: An Analysis of Race, National Origin, and Gender Differentials, 14 B.C. Third World L.J.231, 232 n.5 (1994) hereinafter domestic Violene against Latinas; Jenny Rivera, Puerto Rico’s Domestic Violence Prevention and Intervention Law and the United States Violence Against Women Act of 1994: The Limitations of Legislative Responses, 5 Colum. J. Gender and L. 78, 79 n.8 (1995) hereinafter Puerto Rico’s Domestic Violence Law. Undeniably, violence against women by these categories of perpretrators is different from other violence crimes commited by strangers or nonintimate acquantances and relatives. However, the use of “domestic” as a qualifying term does more than simply categorize based on the status of the abuser. This terminology has, in effect, “domesticized” the very act of violence and facilitated the insulation of this violence from public scrutiny and criminalized. See Elizabeth M. Schneider, The Violence of Privacy, 24 CONN. L. Rev. 973, 977 (1991) (“thus, in the so-called private sphere of domestic and family life, which is purportedly immune from law, there is always the selective application of law. Signifincantly, the selective application of law invokes ‘privacy’ a a rationalte for immunity in order to protect male domination.”)
	9	+
	10	+TURNS case because the aff’s rhetoric entrenches the public/private dichotomy allowing for continued abuse.
	11	+
	12	+Third, the term “domestic violence” disguises the criminal nature of the violence. Only the term intimate partner violence solves. Douglas -
	13	+Heather Douglas “Crime in the intimate sphere: prosecutions of intimate partner violence” 7 newscastle l. rev 80 (2004)
	14	+In this paper I have eschewed the use of the term ‘domestic violence’, this term has suffered criticism in recent times. It has been suggested that the use of the term ultimately hampers further enquiry as it denotes a status relationship as well as a special one, separate such violence out from and somehow modifying ordinary violence. Others note that although the term, when it was initially contrived, was both radical and useful, it may now work to trivialize the violence which broadly is occurring in the context of the home. One judge recently noted that he disliked the term ‘domestic violence’ because the term disguised its criminal nature. It is thus difficult to know how to appropriately name the violence that is the subject of this paper. Its relationship context and gendered nature is extremely relevant and important to understanding and dealing with it. Rather than trivializing it, its status should be seen to exacerbate its seriousness, it is separate from other violence, it is worse. This type of violence is worse and more serious than many other forms of violence because its perpetrators exploit the intimate knowledge they have of their victim and because it frequently exploits a power imbalance between the parties. As a result of these considerations I have used the term ‘intimate partner violence’ to denote that violence which takes place between those in defacto or marriage relationships or those formerly in such relationships. Previous research has found that most DVOs are applied for by women against their male intimates or previous intimates (rather than by men against women). This research supports the view that violence against women by men in intimate relationships is more likely to occur and generally more serious than violence against men by women. The violence discussed here is very much about gender and relationship and this is played out in the fact scenarios I will discuss below. The reality for women continues to be that they are more likely to suffer violence from their intimate partner (or previous partner) than any other person.
	15	+We advocate the entirety the 1AC except with replacing the terms “domestic” or “domestic violence” with “intimate partner violence”

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-11-19 21:11:46.947

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Paul Gravley

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Golda Meir JSi

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+40

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Westwood Shhah Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+0 - CP - IPV DIscourse

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Glenbrooks