We live in a world of monsters. Every day we witness, stunned, absurd acts of violence. People considered “normal” by social systems commit terrible crimes — often within the family. And very often, the victims are women.
To address this horrific phenomenon, states have passed family conflict laws that aim to protect the weaker party — which is almost always defined as the woman. Such laws, although seemingly necessary and well-intentioned, create serious exceptions to fundamental legal principles: equality before the law, presumption of innocence, and the need for swift judicial validation.
In addition to repressive mechanisms, the legal system relies on a multitude of organizations involved in prevention and re-education. But the statistics are brutal — and should make us question the system’s effectiveness. Instead, the emphasis remains on repression and on the unquestioned role of these associations. That’s what I want to discuss in this letter, based on a personal and traumatic experience.
After being removed from my home and children, I encountered several associations. At first, I naively believed in their good intentions. I still remember the first meetings with *Gewaltprävention*, thinking I could prove how the accusations were instrumental and false. Instead, I found a psychologist whose only task was to make me admit I had been violent — and that I needed his support for redemption.
Things got even worse. After the judge confirmed my removal, *KJH* stepped in, proposing “support” for my children. From the very start, their role was biased. When I requested a meeting with my second child for his birthday, they scheduled it based on my ex-wife’s calendar.
But the climax came a few months later. I had noticed custody issues with my ex-wife and asked for an assessment. Their first move? Inform her — who, of course, retaliated.
The accusations then led to a criminal case. But due to how the system works, it was impossible to mount a proper defense: the alleged victim was also the only witness. Without further evidence, her word was the only “proof.” So I settled, to avoid a worse sentence — including 120 hours of community service.
A third association, *New Start*, was involved to help find “useful” work. Its real purpose? Humiliation. At 63, with an MBA from Bocconi’s School of Management, having managed 30 people, I was assigned as a technical assistant in a hospital. My tasks were decided daily by electricians or plumbers.
After two months trying to reach a support group for men in distress, I was finally granted an appointment with *Männerberatung*. The person in front of me was neither psychologist, nor legal expert, nor social worker. His only task was to fill in a statistics form.
During our meeting, it became clear: *Männerberatung* is funded by the Anti-Violence Against Women Fund. Most of its users are men convicted of violent acts.
The conclusion is clear: they are all actors in the same play. No one wants to hear your story — and if they do, their face looks bored. What you say isn’t part of the script. You’re guilty. And you need to be re-educated.
Maybe that’s exactly where change should begin.