Sine die is legal-speak for the court really doesn't want to deal with an issue. The reality is a sine die adjournment is worse than a dismissal because there is no finality. A dismissal would at least provide the reasons of a decision. Here the issue (and you) are basically ignored — and it is well -- insulting.
Oppression in an otherwise free world.
I had asked for an injunction by way of motion to be heard at a hearing in front of a judge. I live in very real fear that my life, security and freedom rights are threatened. Professional and society's dissent of the difficulties I face as a woman with an "invisible disability" is made even worse when my request for an injunction is unacknowledged, no referrals are made, and assistance is denied. It's literally every man for himself.
When we think of a vulnerable woman, we don't think of an educated woman with a strong employment history, working husband, private Christian schooling for her children, cottage and two cars. Women like me are never seen as victims, or having a 'real disability'.
When we try to broach the subject of violence within the legal system, well that's a very controversial subject. It's unlikely anyone would break the sacred code of silence and expose abuse of someone vulnerable at the hands of one, or a group that belongs to the most educated and upper-income segments of our privileged society. That would threaten the status quo and certainly the comfort zone many within the legal society live in.
Where does that leave women like me? Sadly, more than likely in a worse position than I was in at the start. My experience has been that authorities have actually contributed to the problem by dealing this blow, and I am bracing myself for what is likely yet to come.
Injunction orders are there for protection, and there is generally a call to action. In taking my motion (May 25th) and playing a game of 'which shell is your motion in now -- in four more motions?) and then sine die-ing it away until August 20th (nope-wrong shell again) is indicative that the court takes the issue of a woman's abuse lightly. When we allow this to happen, we minimize the potential for dangerous consequences. Someone lost their head here, and I am not to blame for this one.
I realize I am at a distinct disadvantage in Rowan v Thompson Dorfman Sweatman to these white collar privileged abusers who are skilled at playing the game. It is because of who they are that their conduct perceived as questionable is 'kept under wraps' -- worse yet, is that it is seemingly done under the very noses (system) that is supposed to be entrusted to protect the rights of all people, including those most vulnerable. Without any intervention, the defendants, together with Aikins Law (retained by the Law Society) will continue to impose their power, and use any and all (shielded) weapons for the purpose of intimidation, domination and control.
Where does that leave me? Well, we have not come a long way baby.
It seems that this is similar to the posting about the border patrol officer who was there to ensure traffickers weren't pirating DVDs (see earlier posting, Prostitution of Law for Sake of Harmony ). Nepali girls were, and likely still are being kidnapped and imprisoned for the brothels in Kolkata, but this was of no interest to the officer.
The officer stated, “It’s unfortunate,” he agreed, “These girls are sacrificed so that we can have harmony in society."*
*from Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn novel, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide
No comments:
Post a Comment