Talk:Foreign Travel Order
The use of the civil courts to impose restrictions on people's freedoms in this way is rather disturbing, because usually defendants there don't have the same rights they would in a criminal court. In the case of FTOs, the defendant gets hit with a restriction and will then be criminally charged if he violates it. It reminds me of how restraining orders work in the U.S.: the court will impose restrictions on liberty, including taking away gun rights, and then the defendant will get hit with criminal penalties if he violates the order (for example, it would be a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison if he were to be found in possession of a gun; see Lysander (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)). But the original order only required proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant posed any kind of danger that would justify the restrictions, and neither the plaintiff nor the state were required to prove that the defendant had committed any crime. The defendant also lacked the right to a public defender (if he was indigent), adjudication by a impartial jury, and the other rights that criminal defendants are guaranteed, in those civil court proceedings. In both cases, we can ultimately trace these bad laws back to the feminist movement.