Crestview, FL (PRWEB) March 10, 2006
Citizens Against Dating Discrimination (CADD), U.S. international online dating Webmasters.
United States District Judge Clarence Cooper out of the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division issued the TRO on March 7, 2006, barring the government from enforcing the International Marriage Broker Act of 2005 against European Connections & Tours Inc. A Preliminary Injunction Hearing in this matter is now scheduled for March 20, 2006. (European Connections & Tours, Inc. vs. Gonzalez, et al., No. 1:06-cv-00426-CC, U.S.D.C., N.D. Ga.)
CADD’s stance is that IMBRA fails to protect immigrant women from abuse and also violates American men’s privacy rights in the process.
As one CADD member said:
“This law requires international dating webmasters to be policemen and collect background information on male members. The law requires this background information to be forwarded to any lady a male wants to meet at the introduction stage without regard to his privacy. Without the gentleman getting to know the lady,this information could be used as leverage by an unethical lady for financial gain and U.S. law has no jurisdiction in her country to stop her from spreading his personal information throughout the internet.”
CADD maintains that it is not fair for giant sites like Match.com to be exempt from doing background checks. Members of CADD are appalled at the law’s hypocrisy for protecting immigrant women from abuse by exempting larger corporate sites like Match.com and other similar corporate dating sites from having to abide by the law’s guidelines.
One CADD member said that we have asked the following question of feminist, politicians, and other supporters of IMBRA and yet to get an adequate answer:
“If the intent of IMBRA is to protect immigrant women from abuse, why exempt larger corporate sites with their huge male membership base of U.S. men interested in meeting immigrant women?”
Further elaboration by the same CADD member said:
“Immigrant women are just as likely to meet an abusive male on one of these larger exempted sites and maybe even more so since they have a larger male membership base than many of the smaller international sites combined”
In CADD’s research they found that Federal judges don’t often issue a TRO barring the enforcement of a federal law. CADD believes the court has shown a substantial likelihood of prevailing in this case on the merits of IMBRA being unconstitutional, unfair business practice, an invasion of male’s privacy and does not offer substantial proof that the law’s intent to protect immigrant women from abuse has merit without prejudice and equality under the law.
As one CADD member said:
“We have been working night and day to save our mom and pop websites. But, more importantly, to preserve our freedoms, liberties and the right to date whom we want without concerns that our personal information will be used as public record by citizens from other countries. It’s a tough law to fight because of popular buzz words like human trafficking, but we ask the politicians and lawmakers to look beyond the buzz words. Instead, look at the law’s prejudice and unjust implications to U.S. male citizens while at the same time it imposes stiff requirements on smaller international sites and exempts larger corporate sites with their huge male membership base.”
CADD’s other Public Release addressed many of our concerns about this law and even addressed a common sense solution at: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/3/prweb354100.htm CADD believes that once lawmakers read the law (it was passed on a simple undemocratic “voice vote” in the House and a “unanimous consent” vote by the Senate) it will be repealed and replaced with common sense legislation.
CADD believes that IMBRA cannot survive serious legal challenges or media scrutiny. As stated on page 9 of the certified statement by European Connections:
“The number of foreign women profiled who are listed on websites exempted by law such as Match.com, Yahoosingle.com and Friendfinder.com dwarf the total number of profiles listed by International Marriage Brokers worldwide. For example, I have performed a search at Friendfinder.com. I found 354,166 foreign and 553,976 women listed on their site. None of these women, whether foreign or national, are protected by the act.”
CADD believes the government should repeal IMBRA now, work on common sense laws to protect U.S. male’s privacy and provide practical solutions to protecting immigrant women from abuse without causing undo hardship to smaller international dating sites in favor of exempting larger sites from the same requirements. Until such time, CADD and its members will work hard to raise awareness about these issues.
The following links are to documents issued by U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Certified Court Statement by European Connections: http://www.online-dating-rights.com/pdf/ConBrief.pdf
Brief by Lawyer for European Connections: http://www.online-dating-rights.com/pdf/ConBrief.pdf
TRO issued by the court: http://www.online-dating-rights.com/pdf/TRO.pdf
You can read IMBRA 2005 here: http://www.online-dating-rights.com/pdf/IMBRA2005.pdf
The following website is a place to discuss our online dating rights: http://www.online-dating-rights.com