The Rights Of Man

HOW LONG WILL MALE ANOREXIA BE IGNORED BY GOVERNMENT

The list is endless when it comes to issues where the specific needs of men are purposely ignored because of the anti-male Government etc.

Now new figures reveal that 137 men in England with the most severe case of anorexia saw specialists in 2007. Special hospital appointments increased by 32% to 1,700 from figures obtained by the Conservatives and featured in the Mail (link).

Now the Government has the statistics it not needs to look at what services/information are made available to help these men but importantly they must make sure that statutory agencies (especially the NHS and GP surgeries) do not dismiss those men who are suffering solely because they are men. This is what happens when it comes to domestic abuse when male victims are ignored as a matter of routine.

Watch this space.

TWO MORE CASES THAT SHOW RAPE LAW MUST CHANGE

Rape is one of the worst things that can ever to occur to a woman or a man. Those who falsely accuse a man of rape not only let down those women who have been raped but also blight the lives of the accused.

Both Tracy Winfield and Erin Casson are two such women who made false rape allegations (link) ruining the lives of innocent men.

This site has long argued that men accused of rape must remain anonymous unless they are found guilty. They should not have their lives blighted by this and anonymity would give equality of treatment before the law. Importantly, there is no evidence that this would stop any women who was raped from coming forward.

WOMEN FOUND GUILTY OF POISONING MAN

Yesterday, the site featured an article about changing the law on murder and how this anti-male Government believes in everything it says and does that only men are perpetrators of domestic abuse.

The case of Linda Lees who put poison in her husband's food, shows why this is wrong (link).

Again, no comment from Harriet Harman, Angela Eagle or Vera Baird? 

CSA FIGURES REVEAL FALSE PATERNITY CLAIMS BY MOTHERS

The Guardian featured an article (link) outlining that one in every five paternity tests, conducted because of disputes over CSA payments, have shown that the men at the centre of the disputes are not the fathers of the children. This is despite the claims made by mothers that they are.

Of course, the authorities do absolutely nothing to prosecute those mothers who make these false claims.

I don't hear any word from Harriet Harman, Vera Baird or Angela Eagle on this issue, do you?

WOMEN FIGHT BACK AGAINST HARMAN'S MURDER CHANGES

The Government announced last week (BBC , Ministry of Justice, Telegraph, Times , Guardian, Mail) that it was reviewing the murder laws to clarify the law on provocation where the partial defence of provocation would be scrapped and replaced with two new defences.

These would be if someone killed over fears about serious violence, or if they could show they were "seriously wronged" by the victim's actions. According to the Home Office, they said the existing law "is designed to cater for anger killing, but it is not significantly well tailored for killings that are a response to fear".

Justice Minister Maria Eagle said: "For men and women who kill their partners, these changes will mean that the letter of the law finally catches up with judges and juries, who in recent years have been less prone than people think to let men off lightly and punish women harshly."

The issue raises a number of issues but as ever with this anti-male Government it is the tone and interpretation that is so damaging to men. Harman has abolished fatherhood, wants to allow men to be discriminated in employment law and now wants it easier for women to justify killing a man.

Harriet Harman, Eagle and Vera Baird, all Government Ministers, kept, during their interviews, using the example of women suffering from years of domestic abuse and that their fear should be taken into account if they subsequently murdered their husband. A change based on constant abuse rather than a momentary loss of temper which has led to a tiny minority of men to kill their wife. It means that it will be harder for a man to claim a momentary loss of control but easier for a woman to say it was after years of abuse.

Neither type of murder is right and cases should be based on their individual merits, not used as another tool in the armoury of the gender war. Of course, they purposely overlook the 87,200 woemn arrested last year for violence (link)

A number of issues arise:-

Firstly, because society, the media, the politicians, the police/social services/NHS and the courts believe that only women are victims of domestic abuse and not men, and also if a women claims she is a victim, it is automatically believed to be true, the level of proof a women will need to claim provocation will be lower.

Secondly, because all the examples that were given were against men it means it has set a tone of interpretation which will bear heavily on the minds of the prosecuting authorities.

Lastly, what was gratifying was that the backlash against these proposals were led by women and that this was simply another excuse by Harman, Eagle and Baird to demonise men. They are right of course. Women defending men and castigating these three stooges as being anti-men resonates far more powerfully than if it was made by men. 

Melanie McDonagh in The Times called it "An unjust, feminist view of murder" (link) which was coupled with a long debate.

Erin Pizzey in The Mail said "Harman ...which treats men as either second-class citizens or a menace to society." (link) . Erin also featured heavily on the TV and radio.

Jimmy Young in the Express heaps praise on Erin (link)