I will begin by explaining the term “vicarious violence” which, for many, may be completely unknown or at least confusing, but which, from a legal point of view, in practice, has to do with guaranteeing the rights and protection of our children and adolescents who are the most precious thing we have as a society, or at least that is what it should be.
According to the RAE (Royal Spanish Academy of Language) dictionary, it has two meanings or uses: as an adjective: “One who has the times, power and faculties of another person or substitutes for them. Also used as a noun”, and as a masculine and feminine noun: “Person who in regular orders has the times and authority of one of the major superiors, in case of absence, fault or indisposition”.
For example, the Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth. Vicarious violence is understood as violence in which one person commits acts of aggression of any kind against another, but through a third party. In other words, the person who receives the aggression or violence is the vicar, representing the person who is truly the target of said violence. It is complicated, but that is how it is.
Let’s give some examples to better clarify the concept. When there are conflicts in a group of siblings over material goods, one or more of them use violence of any kind against their parents, as a way of pressuring the rest of the siblings to accept some special condition or benefit of their own. Although it may seem hard to believe, this happens in reality much more often than we would like.
And perhaps the most common case is when one of the spouses, it could be either of the two, commits violent acts against the children as a way of pressuring the couple to accept certain conditions or situations. This usually occurs more in separations or divorces of couples, although also when they live together.
Thus, we are faced with a reality that occurs in society, a regrettable reality, which, without a doubt, must be regulated and the victim or victims protected by law, but in these terms, without gender because, as we have already seen, this type of violence can be exercised – and in fact is – by any of the members of a couple or a family, without the gender perspective being involved in their action.
It is an incontrovertible truth that law and justice must protect the most vulnerable, the weakest, and to do so, legislators must identify, analyze and collect social problems, to turn them into laws that guarantee the protection of those rights, but they must do so with sufficient broad-mindedness and without tipping the scales of justice towards either side of the conflict.
I bring this up because, recently, last month, the Law Against Vicarious Violence was to be discussed in the Congress of Chihuahua, but the numerous demonstrations by social groups, mainly men – it must be said – exerted enough pressure for the deputies to decide to drop this initiative and leave its analysis, discussion and approval for another time.
What was the reason for this protest by social groups? Simple, the aforementioned law contained in its wording and structure, as well as in the concept that was intended to be included, the entire burden of gender perspective, that is, it was presented as a law protecting women, children and adolescents, and yes it is, but not exclusively in those terms, because in reality it should be a law that protects anyone who is a victim of this type of violence and, as we have already seen, it can be anyone, regardless of their gender.
Why do the protesting groups claim this? Because the Law against Vicarious Violence was intended to be included in the State Law on the Right of Women to a Life Free of Violence, by the Justice Commission in the Congress of the State of Chihuahua, that is, from its conception and implementation it was already oriented towards the protection of only one of the parties in a probable conflict, even suggesting that those who commit vicarious violence are only men, when in practice this is not the case.
The most common cases, which many of us may be familiar with, are when a couple divorces or separates, and the woman, in order to put pressure on the man, denies him regular coexistence with his children in order to obtain more and better benefits from said separation.
I am not saying that men do not exercise vicarious violence against women, of course there are also such cases, but in most couple conflicts it is exactly the opposite, with children being used to pressure for better conditions of separation. In the end, it is the children who are re-victimized because they already suffer from the physical separation of their parents, without adding to that the fact that they cannot see and live with their parent.
In addition to all this, we must also add the unethical and even criminal practice of some lawyers who work in civil and family matters who, in their eagerness to “win” their cases at all costs, even go so far as to recommend that their clients fabricate criminal offenses, such as sexual abuse, rape, physical assault and the like, which, of course, puts men at a complete disadvantage, and often even leads to jail.
Obviously, these are legal, dirty and vile stratagems to put pressure on those who are expected to obtain much more than what is legally due, even to the point of renouncing parental authority over the children with all that this implies.
It may seem like the plot of a soap opera or drama movie, but it is the harsh and cruel reality that most of the time surpasses fiction, to the detriment of the children, the man and even the entire family, but it happens much more than we think.
It is not about defending irresponsible parents, no, when a couple breaks up and separation occurs, and there are children involved, the father must inevitably take charge of their support, without a doubt, as stipulated by law, and if applicable, also of the couple as appropriate, but between that and reaching harmful extremes such as using the children, or inventing crimes in order to obtain more than the law requires, there is a huge difference.
I know several such cases up close, very closely, as they are friends or acquaintances in my closest social circle, and they really are stories of true terror, due to what has happened to them emotionally, mentally and financially, combined with all of the above and the logical suffering of not seeing or living with their children.
Cases in which even the judges, turned into true executioners, apply without any consideration the most extreme measures for supposed crimes committed, and when in the end it turned out that they were fabricated crimes and there is no such thing, not even “excuse me” or anything like that, but they have already screwed up the entire life of an innocent person.
There is also no punishment for lawyers lacking professional ethics who lend themselves to this type of legal strategies, and who happily promote them in the courts to gain more clients eager to harm their ex-partner as much as possible, in a very clear desire for revenge or personal vengeance rather than justice.
This is what the dissatisfaction of these social groups that opposed the Law Against Vicarious Violence is about, in the terms in which it was presented; they do not oppose the law itself, but the way in which it is intended to be established.
Of course, anyone who commits vicarious violence should be punished, of course they should, but equally, whether it is a man or a woman, because this type of behavior is not exclusively exclusive to one gender, it can be committed by anyone, therefore, anyone who commits it should be punished, regardless of their gender.
Finally, the Law against Vicarious Violence must exist on its own, of course, but it must protect the passive subject of the same, that is, the person who receives the acts of violence that aim to affect or pressure another, be it children, parents, grandparents, uncles or whoever they may be, that is what this valuable legal instrument should deal with, completely departing from the gender perspective.
#Law #vicarious #violence #doubleedged #sword
