“The greatest absurdities in the world become correct, as soon as they have got Usage fully on their side, just as the worst usurper becomes legitimate, as soon as he is completely established on the throne.”

—Esaias Tegner (1874)

The author of the epigraph, a Swede who popularized linguistic research, was talking about language, but his denunciation is broadly applicable. He deplored that standards of reason and rectitude are easily corrupted when “anything goes” becomes the norm.

He despairingly observed, in other words, that when absurdity becomes customary, it’s accepted without question.

The inanities inherent in the administration of civil restraining orders persist, because the process has enjoyed a 30-year reign virtually uncontested. Those most qualified to protest its inequities and inadequacies are seldom its victims, so their protests (few and far between) have accomplished little toward motivating reform, and those victimized by the process are seldom sufficiently educated in the law or spiritually equipped to defy their lot.

Popularity and rootedness have replaced decency and propriety as the gauges of worthiness, and the authorities who should most be outraged by this misrule have mostly kept mum.

Estimable jurists (legal experts) shouldn’t be contented with the dismissal, “Why fix it if it ain’t broke?” The restraining order process is broke, in more ways than one. It’s not only broken; it’s morally bankrupt, besides.

Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, acknowledged two decades ago that restraining orders are “granted to virtually all who apply.” Echoes of her critical candor from peers in the legal community have been markedly few, however, during the years since. Disdainful remarks by respected attorneys about how restraining orders are abused, such as those by Terri Weiss in her blog From Bedroom to Courtroom, may appear as asides in treatments of other topics, but seldom are restraining orders categorically denounced at length.

Eminent legal scholars are more likely to parse and weigh in on legal niceties of interest to the highest courts in the land, because such opinions are excellent fodder for curricula vitae (academic résumés). Meanwhile gross abuses of everyday processes that victimize citizens on an epidemic scale go disregarded. Too mundane, wot, wot. In reality, bucking the status quo by observing the obvious isn’t impressive or likely to enhance one’s popular (and thus professional) regard and credibility.

It would, however, promise to do a lot more social good.

Copyright © 2014 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com