Shout at your spouse and risk losing your home

**Zuberi** · 28th-January-2011

Shout at your spouse and risk losing your home: It's just the same as domestic violence, warns woman judge

By Daily Mail Reporter

Women entitled to council house if they move because partner shouts | Mail Online

Men and women who shout at their partners risk being thrown out of their homes under a sweeping ruling by judges yesterday.

Raising your voice at a husband or wife, or a boyfriend or girlfriend, now counts as domestic violence under the landmark Supreme Court judgment.

The decision also means that denying money to a partner or criticising them can count as violence and bring down draconian domestic violence penalties from the courts.

The Supreme Court made its decision in the case of a woman who left her husband’s council flat and then demanded a new council home.

She said she left because she had suffered domestic violence – even though her husband had never harmed her.

Lady Hale, leading a bench of five justices, said the definition of violence must change so that a range of abusive behaviour now counts in law.

The decision will affect domestic violence and family law which has given the courts powers to throw someone out of their home if their partner accuses them of violent behaviour. Until now violence has always had to mean physical assault.

The judges were hearing the case of Mihret Yemshaw, 35, who said she had been subjected to domestic violence and was entitled to be rehoused under the 1996 Housing Act.

Officials in Hounslow, West London, turned her down after hearing that her husband had never hit her nor threatened to do so.

Mrs Yemshaw told them he had shouted in front of their two children, failed to treat her like a human, had not given her housekeeping money, and she was scared he would take the children away from her.

Lady Hale said the meaning of the word ‘violence’ had moved on since Parliament passed the Housing Act.

The word ‘is capable of bearing several meanings and applying to many different types of behaviour. These can change and develop over time’. The judge added that ‘it is not for Government and official bodies to interpret the meaning of the words which Parliament has used. That role lies with the courts.’

Lady Hale said that according to the dictionary, violence means physical attack, but can also apply to extreme fervour, passion or fury.

One judge, Lord Brown, said he had a ‘profound doubt’ as to whether the domestic violence provisions were ever intended ‘to extend beyond the limits of physical violence’.

The judgment means that Mrs Yemshaw will now have her case reconsidered by Hounslow. It will also apply to a wide field of legislation, including the 1996 Family Law Act which allows people to be ejected from their homes if their partners complain of domestic violence.

The decision comes at a time of growing concern over the powers of senior judges and their willingness to alter laws made by Parliament.

Family law expert Jill Kirby yesterday drew a comparison between the ruling and the Humpty Dumpty character in Lewis Carroll’s Through The Looking-Glass, who said words meant whatever he wanted them to mean. She said: ‘The judiciary are taking the Humpty Dumpty view, and it risks undermining confidence in the legal system.’

Mihret Yemshaw’s husband told the Daily Mail last night he had never been violent towards his wife who, like him, was born in Ethiopia. They married in London ten years ago.

Samuel Estifanos, a 40-year-old bus driver, claimed she left the flat where he still lives because she was ‘unhappy’. He added: ‘I never hit her and I never even screamed or swore at her.’

**dievas** · 28th-January-2011

This reminds me of "Animal Farm" by George Orwell.

The definition of "violence" is slowly changing to meet their standards.

**Marx** · 28th-January-2011

... and she was scared he would take the children away from her.

Oh c'mon!!!! Be serious! How many men who are able to simply whisk away the children? That IS a female domain, not a male one! Utter, utter nonsense!

**Ambiorix** · 28th-January-2011

In the general population, the image of physical abuse is mainly "man perpetrator, woman victim", and it is a difficult task for us to correct that view. With verbal abuse however, I think the image is just as much, if not more, the other way around. This one may hit woman like a boomerang.

**Redpill** · 28th-January-2011

There is nothing domestically violent about shouting. What the fuck is this? The courts needs to keep out of the lives of men and women. This is insane, these motherfuckers are nothing but a bunch of fucking morons. I should have known that this took place in the United Queendom. This is bullshit.

**omegaflux** · 28th-January-2011

The decision also means that denying money to a partner.......
.................
Mrs Yemshaw told them he had shouted in front of their two children, failed to treat her like a human, had not given her housekeeping money, and she was scared he would take the children away from her.

Well we all know that feminism is in part a communist ideology that seeks to shift money from productive men to non-productive women. Apparently its now legislated that men have to turn over the money they earn. I'm not sure what housekeeping means in this instance or in the UK, as opposed to in the States, so I can't really comment on that. So if a husband refuses to give his stay at home wife with no kids money for a maid so she can go hang out and go to pilates classes and shopping with her friends all day instead of contributing in any way to the upkeep of the home is he guilty of domestic violence?

**Lady Catherine** · 28th-January-2011

Quote from Redpill

There is nothing domestically violent about shouting.

Agreed.

Quote from Redpill

The [entire system] needs to keep out of the lives of men and women.

Fixed. The personal affairs between men and women are just that: personal affairs. The only time the system should have a right to interfere, is when there is genuine abuse.

**themanonthestreet** · 28th-January-2011

Since women tend to be the shouters more often than men, does that also compute in this bitty's mind?

TMOTS

**Marx** · 29th-January-2011

I should send them some of the sound files I have from when I was married... oh boy.

**Douglas** · 29th-January-2011

Quote from themanonthestreet

Since women tend to be the shouters more often than men, does that also compute in this bitty's mind?

Indeed. As stupid and domestically destructive as this ruling is, does the issue really belong in this forum under "Discrimination & Sexist Double Standards" rather than, perhaps, activism?

Men: you have a woman divorcing you against your will? File a complaint that she was shouting at you and should be separated from you and the children because of her domestic violence. You have some bitch at work who yells at you? File a complaint for violence in the work place.

It is sick but in a sick society one has to use what weapons are available and until this ruling can be reversed by statute, I suggest men use it - when justified by fact - to their advantage.

**omegaflux** · 29th-January-2011

Quote from Douglas

Indeed. As stupid and domestically destructive as this ruling is, does the issue really belong in this forum under "Discrimination & Sexist Double Standards" rather than, perhaps, activism?

Men: you have a woman divorcing you against your will? File a complaint that she was shouting at you and should be separated from you and the children because of her domestic violence. You have some bitch at work who yells at you? File a complaint for violence in the work place.

It is sick but in a sick society one has to use what weapons are available and until this ruling can be reversed by statute, I suggest men use it - when justified by fact - to their advantage.

And you think that will work? You're assuming that the complaint would be taken seriously by the police, which it wouldn't. Also, just like when women started to be arrested under mandatory arrest laws the feminists were quick to come out with the whole 'primary aggressor' BS they will be quick to come out for some modification to this law if it starts being used against women.

**Xxavier** · 29th-January-2011

Quote from themanonthestreet

Since women tend to be the shouters more often than men, does that also compute in this bitty's mind?

TMOTS

So true, in some ways this is an advantageous ruling for men. My experience is that women do much more shouting/nagging than men. But still ridiculous.

**Nynrah Ghost** · 29th-January-2011

Quote from omegaflux

And you think that will work? You're assuming that the complaint would be taken seriously by the police, which it wouldn't. Also, just like when women started to be arrested under mandatory arrest laws the feminists were quick to come out with the whole 'primary aggressor' BS they will be quick to come out for some modification to this law if it starts being used against women.

I am inclined to agree with that. In the unthinkable situation where women get mass screwed over (men are not taken as serious as women are, the hardships of sexually abused boys are one of the most grotesque examples of this and men; on top of that, they won't report or resort to abuse so quickly because they know they won't be believed while women know they are which is the catalyst for such vindictiveness), feminists WILL start lobbying and campaigning like there is no tommorow to shield women, yet keep the draconian measures in place for men.

**Douglas** · 29th-January-2011

Quote from omegaflux

And you think that will work? You're assuming that the complaint would be taken seriously by the police, which it wouldn't.

The best way to get around the police issue is to have your solicitor take it to them. After all, it's not as though you are seeking emergency action requiring immediate police presence. Tell your solicitor all the facts, make sure they are aware of this supreme court decision, and instruct them to take the issue to the police. It could be well worth the effort and investment: don't forget that while most divorces no longer have any legal aid, those involving claims of domestic violence can still get legal aid. The police will find it a lot harder to ignore your solicitor (who should have made sure of sufficient evidence from you before he approaches them) and there is a greater chance of the case being considered by the prosecution service.

I make no bones about it, this can be a tough emotional route to go. If your marriage is breaking up because of your bad behaviour, then I hope you don't take my advice but just get out of your poor wife's life. But if you are being divorced against your will by some conniving adulterer then wake up fast: I know you still love her but you need to do whatever you can to protect yourself and win.

Quote from omegaflux

Also, just like when women started to be arrested under mandatory arrest laws the feminists were quick to come out with the whole 'primary aggressor' BS they will be quick to come out for some modification to this law if it starts being used against women.

Fine, let them campaign on it. It's a foul decision and should be removed, so let them spend time and effort getting some sense back into the law - all we have to do is keep an eye out to make sure that when it is removed, it is removed in a gender-neutral way. In the year or so that it will stay around in the meantime, there's no reason for men not to use it: women will!

**byslexic_danana** · 29th-January-2011

Raising your voice at a husband or wife, or a boyfriend or girlfriend, now counts as domestic violence under the landmark Supreme Court judgment

Am I the only one who thinks you might as well remove the words in bold?