Dear Dr. Sean Patrick Lovett,
By now you are aware of the controversy regarding Ms. Hodges’ foreign dating site report entitled “Mail Order Nightmares” in which Susie did not read the IMBRA law and, thus, described it only in the manner that a radical feminist organization wanted her to describe it. The law is at www.veteransabroad.com/IMBRA2005.pdf
and the US government reports that prove that the law was not necessary can be read here http://www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/index.php?topic=685.0
and the evidence that the Georgia court will soon overthrow IMBRA is at this link www.veteransabroad.com/TRO.pdf
There was a good reason why Catherine helped influence that you take the one-sided, slanderous report down for 3 days. I will show below how Susie actually added more dishonest statements to the broadcast than the Tahirih Justice Center and Senator Brownback would dare to (because of libel issues). Susie committed more libel than they did.
And yet the report mysteriously went back up on Friday. If US Senator Brownback called you to ask you not to allow an opposing viewpoint, this is major news in itself that the US media will want to report on. Please note sir that no American media outlet has ever gone so far as Susie’s report: Most media in the USA are waiting for the court decision on IMBRA. I somebody called you and said that the American men who complained were just 3 or 4 guys on a website, that is a tactic that is far from the truth as I will show. But to start, simple facts and logic should be more important than proof that this is a major political issue in the United States:
Susie’s report, and her attitude on the telephone that background checks for online dating are long overdue, could not happen even in the USA where feminists hate the idea of men finding non-feminists in other countries. Susie’s report was not journalism, it was propaganda, and please do not circle the wagons for her. I can ask people to take down specific criticism of her journalistic abilities (such as fact checking and talking to the opposing side – in this case the people in the EC Lawsuit against IMBRA who will probably win any day now).
Lots of dating agencies even do background checks on men…but the problem with IMBRA is that it does not allow contact of any kind, including sending the man’s photograph and evidence that he is intelligent and smart and interesting, before the woman has to specifically go through a process that may take days or weeks to provide the agency with evidence in writing that she did approve that the man could say hello and describe himself.
Please understand, sir, that a US Federal Court is expected to strike down the slanderous IMBRA law any day now.
Most US media are waiting for the decision. Susie’s propaganda could wait a week or two as well could it not?
If you are against feminism, and accept that feminism is often geographic and culture-based, then it is illogical to accept the argument that looking for non-feminists is a bad thing.
1) It is illogical to accept the idea that men who are anti-feminist are somehow violent.
2) It is illogical to accept the idea that the top 2% of these men who have the financial ability to travel are more violent
3) It is illogical to be anti-feminist and believe that the only issue is abortion when that is a red-herring for the feminists: Feminism is defined as the desire to create a culture where women are victims of abusive men.
Here is the only US government study that has been done on the matter. All the feminist rhetoric cannot ignore the statistics and this is why we will win the court case:
It is a very serious issue if the Vatican talks about being against feminism and then broadcasts the most radical feminist slander against American men in history despite direct evidence that the Tahirih Justice Center is not telling the truth.
Susie said “but this is Bipartisan”. NO SIR. Brownback is an aberration in politics. He is disliked by conservatives for a variety of reasons, mostly being that, despite his pro-life stance, every other stance is pro-feminist or left wing. He tricked his colleagues into voting for IMBRA because it was stuck in the back of the VAWA which was subject to a forced vote at the last second while attached to the FBI Budget Reauthorization Act. Hardly any US politician knows about IMBRA and/or they are waiting for the court decision.
Of the American men who sometimes date an East European woman via a dating site, approximately 23% are Catholic according to the 1999 INS Report that also showed that men who marry these women tend to have a domestic abuse rate of 1% compared to the American domestic average of 7%. This is logical, because the same report, and other reports, show that the men who use marriage oriented dating sites tend to be upper middle class and high income earners. The fact that many say they have no interest in marrying radical feminists should, rightfully, not cause any good Catholic to look askance at their motivations.
I would like for you to know that the solution to this problem is at hand and will probably be decided by a Georgia court momentarily: Background checks on Americans will probably be OK at the moment when a foreigner applies for a fiancé or marriage visa to that American…but background checks for simple contact, to say “hello”, will be declared unconstitutional.
If you choose to do a new report, we would like very much if you could include the opinion of an American single male opposed to the IMBRA law and to the continued US government funding of the Tahirih Justice Center, which promotes a radical feminist Bahai-faith world-view while only running a shelter for women as a means of gathering anecdotal ammunition for ideological battle against the men and women who disagree with them. We, of course, would love for you to interview the owner of a marriage-oriented dating agency as well to see the difference between these good institutions and the casual dating agencies so prevalent in the west or the escort services (sex tourism services) that are a completely separate industry.
Please keep in mind that, to properly cover this subject, one would have to do a one hour segment or at least a half hour segment. It would not be a problem for me to come to Rome because my human rights and the rights of East European women to decide their own level of security would be worth the effort.
To make the show relevant to women’s rights, I would like to get across the following:
Women should not lose the right to decide their own level of security. If a woman wants the world to know one of 3 hotmail.com addresses she just created 5 minutes ago, the US government should not be allowed to make it illegal to abide by her wishes especially because there is a 0% probability of any danger resulting from anyone knowing one of anonymous email addresses.
Feminists believe that a woman with a dozen email addresses might still be upset or bothered by a bad man writing an email to one of those.
Furthermore, if one reviews behind the scenes of US politics, there is every reason to believe that the slandering of men who date abroad is motivated by a fear of social globalization where the older radical feminists are furious at the idea that they will be left unmarried and alone. I do not blame them for being worried but this does not give them the right to broadcast slander on Vatican Radio and dishonestly push through laws “to protect women” based on having fraudulently presented anecdotes as evidence of a problem that statistically is not a problem.
How can “victim feminists” be considered credible judges of the character of a subgroup of others who are openly opposed to them ideologically?
Therefore, please note that any mention of a particular act of abuse against a foreign woman met over the Internet should rightfully to be shown in perspective to a much higher rate of abuse in the general population of the United States. There were 3 murders of foreign brides in the USA over 20 years who had met their white husbands via an agency, compared to some 10,000 murders of American domestic brides in the same time period. Yet the Wikipedia description for the racist term “mail order bride” unfairly lists just those 3 murders.
And it is this unfair focus that actually defines what “radical feminism” is to many men. The issue of dishonest reporting of abuse can split conservatives in half and could have been responsible for sweeping the Republicans out of power in November 2006. Please go to www.mediaradar.org
to see more on this.
It just becomes sensationalism to use out-of-context anecdotes to slander the good name, not only of a supposedly identifiable subgroup, but of all American and indeed western men who decide at any point in their lives to make contact with a woman from a country less financially rich (but possibly more spiritually rich) than his own.
The motivations of radical feminist organizations like Tahirih, however, can easily be questioned:
Let me directly discuss Susie’s report:
“Mail Order Bride Nightmares” Vatican Radio, Jan. 27, 2007
An unidentified moderator begins the program…
“They’re single women mostly young to middle aged looking for love or simply for a better life in another country. Sometimes in response to a newspaper ad or by surfing the internet they can find what they are looking for. But sometimes they can end up living a nightmare.
Since 2005 though, new legislation in the United States has aimed to curb the abuse of foreign women- so called mail order brides who could end up marrying an American man with a criminal record and a penchant for violence.
The US domestic violence rate is 7% while the abuse rate of foreign brides met over the Internet is 1%.
I can link to proof of this; if you show me that this matters (the Jesuits may just want to ignore the statistics).
Please note that we are entering feminist territory when we discuss “the abuse industry” where billions can be earned by “shelters” in Washington DC who milk the government because everyone wants to “save women”. Please look at www.mediaradar.org
to see that this is major political movement.
Also please note that the RADAR organization got Kofi Annan’s “United Nations Report on Violence Against Women” successfully snubbed:http://www.mediaradar.org/un_violence_report.php
Is your office in tune with the feminists at the United Nations? Even if it is, IMBRA and the regulation of the Internet is a topic to be debated, not to be a platform for the Vatican to help an erratic US Senator Brownback simply because Brownback is pro-life.
“The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act requires dating agencies to provide information to foreign women about their legal right and about the criminal backgrounds of their perspective American husbands.”
This is not true Dr. Lovett, but the exact sentence is from the website of the radically feminist Tahirih.org website. Susie was lazy and just took their exact definition without doing research. Not even a left wing feminist American journalist will lie like that.
IMBRA requires background checks for any American to even say “hello” to another individual where there is a 99% chance they will never get married.
There is, in fact, a 90% chance that two people who contact each other over the Internet will never meet each other.
Susie simply did not do research on this. She did not read the law at www.veteransabroad.com/IMBRA2005.pdf
There is nothing in the law that cares about the fact that 99% of people who say hello to each other do not get married. The court has shown that it will probably overturn IMBRA for this very reason.
If you want to say hello to a Polish woman online, you cannot let the Nazis tell you that you are a “potential husband” requiring a background check. This is insane.
“The 2005 Act was passed with wide bi-partisan support after growing evidence that many foreign women were being brutally abused, exploited and in a number of cases even murdered by their American husbands.”
This, Dr. Lovett, is the most damning evidence that Susie just copied text word-for-word from the Tahirih website. She did not even digest the issue much less make phone calls.
There IS NO growing evidence, and the courts have already noted this. Please read www.veteransabroad.com/TRO.PDF
to see the opinion of the judge who will probably overturn this soon. About the 3 murders: In the past 20 years, three foreign brides who met their US husbands on the Internet were killed. In the same time period, more than 10,000 American women were killed.
No American radio station or newspaper would say this with a straight face.
In most cases the women were not warned beforehand by the agencies of the men’s sometimes violent background.
In two of the three cases, there was nothing to warn about. All three women showed direct evidence that they had defrauded the man into thinking she loved him in order to get into the USA. They did not deserve to die for this, nor did the 10,000 women who died violently in the same time period.
Plus, the Vatican (Jesuits) cannot be serious about establishing a policy that Internet websites are responsible for what happens when people meet each other.
That is a major political issue.
“But the Act has been challenged in a number of lawsuits mounted by consortiums of International Marriage Brokers in separate US States. One such law suit was recently defeated in Ohio. Susie Hodges (Not sure of spelling of her name) has been looking into the problems connected with the mail order bride industry. She filed this report”
Susie copied and pasted text from a feminist website and then she said “Susie Hodges filed this report”.
There were two lawsuits and, because we are about to win the one in Georgia, the one in Ohio was let go strategically. We were not defeated. In fact, the Tahirh Justice Center defeated itself by stupidly allowing the Ohio lawsuit to be dropped. They show evidence of this in a brief they filed just yesterday.
Now it is also true that the Ohio lawsuit had a judge who was deranged like Brownback. He said “The Supreme Court has never held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner”.
Do you agree with this? Please read his “denial of TRO” to see why we decided that this lawsuit was unnecessary especially with this judge:www.veteransabroad.com/denied.pdf
Note how even this judge admits that there is no evidence to back up the theory that men who date foreigners are abusive or controlling. This judge shows that he simply wants the government to be able to regulate people’s lives if it wants to because there is “no fundamental liberty interest” in people meeting each other.
Note that the US Constitution has a Right to Assembly that is being ignored.
( Moderator/ Commentator Susie Hodges)… “Women from every corner of the globe are marketed on International Marriage Broker websites.
Match.com and other dating sites around the world would not refer to the business of matchmaking as “marketing women”. This broadcast needs to be redone.
But how many of these mail order brides end up as battered brides?. Evidence suggests that up to now many women far from finding the husband of their dreams end up in a nightmare situation. Critics of the Mail Order Bride business say the marketing practices of the marriage broker agencies attract predatory abusers with a history of violence against women and children.
This is radical feminist theory but worse: Susie Hodges is using an epithet to degrade foreign women: especially Russian and Polish women.
I spoke with Susie and she honestly believes that English women and American women should be telling these foreign women how to think. So, for her, the derogatory and racist term “mail order bride” just rolls off the tongue.