The Rights Of Man

WHITSUN ROUND-UP OF MALE DISCRIMINATION ARTICLES

As is traditional for the site on a bank holiday, listed below are some of the newspaper articles on issues not covered (yet) on the web-site over the past six month but worth reading:-

False Accusations

Daily Mail - Businessmen to sue BA for treating men like perverts 

The Times - Naming rape suspects ruins lives(article by the wonderful Minette Marrin) 

Scottish TV - Charity Worker tried to frame ex-boyfriend

Belfast Telegraph - Face of a rape liar

Exeter Express - I've been torn apart by false rape claim

Daily Mail - Man falsely accused hangs himself

Daily Mail - Harman's unreliable statistics scare off rape victims - review by Baroness Stern

Daily Mail - Young woman who cried rape walks free

Daily Mail - Jurors in tears

Daily Telegraph - Facebook faker jailer

Domestic Abuse

Daily Mail - I was a husband-beater Depression

Daily Mail - Men suffer depression in silence - research by Mind

Daily Mail - Violence by women soars to 250 arrest per day

Daily Mirror - Male victims explains why he feared for his life

This is Cheshire - Increase in male victims

This is Wales - De Gwynedd domestic abuse service to include males

Boys' Education

Wales Online - Lost generation feared as boys reject education

The Independent - The number of men applying to be teachers soars

Fathers

Daily Telegraph - The role of the father has been downgraded (Ruth Deech)

National Literacy Trust - Boys struggle to find interesting books

Employment

Daily Mail - Man sacked because law firm feared sacking maternity leave colleague

New or updated web-sites

The ManKind Initiative

Erin Pizzey

Posted by Skimmington

COALITION GOVERNMENT - WHAT IT MEANS FOR MALE EQUALITY AND THE ENDING OF MALE DISCRIMINATION

Just before polling day on 6th May, this site concluded that the Liberal Democrats had the most man-friendly policies and now they are in a coalition with the Conservatives, their influence can be seen as there is much that is man-friendly in the Coalition Government's plans which were agreed after their negotiations.

In fact, and it seemed to have been hidden away as it received no publicity, the Liberal Democrats had actually produced a short manifesto for men during the election campaign. Nick Clegg said "Men are often a forgotten group in political debates."

While there are many good things in the Coalition Governments plans, there are also some areas of great concern especially on pensions and the fact that there remains a Minister for Women but not one for men.

The good things

(1) Anonymity for rape defendants (unless proven guilty).

John has covered the opposition to this in his last post and it has also been well covered in the media as anti-male organisations such as the Fawcett Society stir up their hatred of men.

This issue is totemic because it is clear that the Coalition Government are aware of the inequality in British Law where the defendant is named and the victim (rightly) is not. The law may not have been changed though if it was not for the epidemic of false accusations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6   and 7 plus more here). It is those women who are to blame for this and it is those women who should be attacked by The Fawcett Society, the Women Against Rape Group and those who signed the Early Day Motion.

The Coalition Government must hold its nerve against the onslaught from the anti-male marxist feminists who don't believe in equality, justice and do not care about those innocent men who have had their names and reputations dragged through the mud.

This though is ground-breaking.

(2) Anonymity to teachers accused by pupils and take other measures to protect against false accusations.

This is another area similar to the rape issue and again, because the false allegations are normally against men, this is hugely significant and to be supported. It is also backed crucially by a whole swathe of organisations including the teaching unions.

There is a case though for it to be extended to those in the medical professions as doctors (and indeed dentists as shown in this case) are also at great risk of false allegations.

(3) A comprehensive review of family law in order to increase the use of mediation when couples do break up, and to look at how best to provide greater access rights to non-resident parents and grandparents and encourage shared parenting from the earliest stages of pregnancy – including the promotion of a system of flexible parental leave.

This is hugely significant because probably the biggest and long-standing injustice against men to have been used in the past two decades or so has been the deliberate denial of access to their children by  (some) mothers and the legal establishment (many family court judges) and of course Cafcass who have all acted in cahoots. It's why we ended up with Fathers4Justice and Families Need Fathers who have supported estranged fathers up and down the UK.

The review is greatly needed and should not only enshrine the concept of shared parenting when and if custody disputes come to court but also that there is actual enforcement of contact orders. Families Need Fathers are very supportive.

The not-so-good things

(1) Minster for Women but no Minister for Men

When Blair became Prime Minister in 1997 he introduced the extremely invidious position of a Minister for Women without having a reciprocal Minister for Men. It meant that for every single day that that Government was in place it discriminated against men.

Sadly, the Coalition Government has gone down the same path and as well as being Home Secretary, Theresa May is also the Minister for Women. There is no Minister for Men.

(2) Discrimination over Pension Age

Currently legislation shows that the state pension ages for men and women will be equalised in 2020 at 65 and then gradually increase together over time including both rising to 66 in 2026 (Covered by John here).

The Conservatives when in Opposition proposed that the state pension age should be moved forward to 66 for men with no change for women except for that planned (move from 60 to 65 for women in 2020 and then to 66 in 2026). The Conservatives were questioned on this at the time and it was clear that they had forgotten to think about women (it was Ok for men to see if their retirement age of 66 brought before by ten years - men are expendable of course).

The details in the proposed Pension and Savings Bill are still sketchy (until it is published) but the Government has said that the first move, to 66, "will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women", which obviously shows some backtracking.

After the battle led by organisation like Parity for the equalisation of pension ages and other benefits, if the state pension ages are not equalised by 2020 then this will be certainly be discriminatory. How the detail will be worked out before then will also be significant. We will be watching.

(3) Gender equality in the boardroom

The Coalition Government has said they will promote more gender equality in the boardroom. Much will depends on how this is done.

The anti-male feminist wants quotas and to use discrimination to stop men from getting into the boardroom by ensuring that places are set aside for women, irrelevant if they are the best candidate for the job.

If a Labour Government had become re-elected then this would have eventually been legislated for as it is in Norway and elsewhere (link). How the Coalition Government go about this will be crucial but even by promoting it, it will put companies under 'social' pressure to do so.

There has been some talk also that the Coalition Government will not implement the parts of the Equality Act that it disagreed with. These were on the gender pay audits for all firms with over 250 employees and also the (laughably named) ' positive action' clauses that allowed employers to discriminate against employees or potential employees (mainly men) when it came to recruitment. Let us hope they do not implement these parts.

(4) The Missing Pieces

There were a number of issues that were missing but if they can brave it out against the anti-male feminist on the false accusations issue, then perhaps they will introduce them later.

This includes issues around support men's health (especially ensuring GP surgeries have man friendly opening hours) and boys education for example.

Conclusion

While there will be dismay that there is not more for bringing about male equality and ending male discrimination in the UK, the moves on false accusations and shared parenting are real landmarks. Certainly if a Labour Government had been re-elected men would have been done for and certainly none of these proposals would have been put forward.

This site will be monitoring and commenting on the Coalition Government as it trundles along but so far it is good start, but it could and can do better. 

Posted by Skimmington

THE 53 SEXIST MPS OPPOSING CIVIL LIBERTIES AND JUSTICE

On 26 May an Early Day Motion was introduced into Parliament by Fiona MacTaggart MP opposing the proposal to give anonymity to those accused of rape. Interestingly, the motion was put forward at almost exactly the same time as the case of Olumide Fadayomi, a victim of a serial accuser. Mr Fadayomi almost committed suicide over the issue whereas the previous victim fared even worse and the incident ultimately resulted in his death.

Aside from the insensitive timing, lets examine the content of the motion to show exactly why it is so fundamentally flawed, illogical and offensive:

1. "The Government's proposal to grant anonymity to defendants in rape cases sends a message to juries and rape victims that the victim is not to be believed"

Complete nonsense. The process of naming those accused of rape in the newspapers before their trial actually undermines the concept of innocent until proven guilty. It enables false accusers to effectively gain a conviction in their communities merely by publicising the accusation and through the concept of "no smoke without fire". Naming those accused of rape is a big incentive for making false allegations as it is the best way to ruin the victim's life. By granting anonymity we take away such power from false accusers, thus encouraging less of them to come forward. Therefore any laws discouraging false accusations actually strengthens the cases of genuine rape victims and means they are more likely to be believed, not less.

2. "fears that this could inhibit the effective prosecution of serial rapists"

A very dishonest statement. Anyone guilty of rape is still going to have their name and picture plastered all over the newspapers once they're found guilty. Further victims can come forward at that stage just as easily.

3. "is further concerned that this will reverse the progress made on the prosecution of rape cases noted in the independent Stern Review"

I'm not exactly sure what to make of this statement. If the MPs are honestly suggesting our justice system and all the progress we've made somehow relies on a trial by media and ruining the lives of innocent men is an inevitable byproduct of achieving justice for others then either they're stupid or we've got the most hopeless justice system on the planet. As stated in point one the proposal will reduce the number of false allegations out there, thus meaning a increase conversion rate of allegations into convictions.

4. "is further concerned that the Government has put forward the proposal without any research, evidence or examination of these issues; and calls on the Government to withdraw its proposal."

This last point is the most valid aspect of the motion. There is something of a lack of research on this issues, yet you'll notice that the vast majority of this listed below who signed the motion are member of the Labour Party and have therefore been in power for the last 13 years. These politicians had all that time to conduct this research yet they've refused to even discuss the issue of innocent people having their lives completely ruined by false accusers. In fact it's worse than this, the Labour government created and nurtured a hysterical gender feminist climate in which the issue became almost completely taboo, so it's little wonder we're lacking in decent research on the issue. This is quite clearly a problem of their own making so it's quite pathetic to bring up such a point now.

Although such research would be most welcome here we don't exactly need it to pass such a law anyway. It's blatantly obvious that naming the accused in a criminal case whilst their accusers hides under the blanket of anonymity is totally unfair and unjust. The statistics would be very interesting, but ultimately it really doesn't matter whether the law is going to help to protect 800 or 8,000 innocent people every year. People are dying as a result of false rape allegations and have others have their lives completely ruined or are forced out of the country. Delaying the proposal will inevitably cost innocent people their careers, their marriages, their sanity and even their lives. Further research should surely only be a pre-requisite if a proposal wished to create an unfair one-sided situation where only one party was granted anonymity such as is the case at present?

The only legitimate argument against the law would be that it isn't appropriate to conduct criminal matters in secret and that anonymity shouldn't be granted to anyone in court cases and so the law would be making a bad situation even worse. I don't necessary share such a position and believe both parties should have anonymity but we should perhaps bear this last argument in mind when considering the last of names below as there may well be one or two who subscribe to this more rational position rather than the specific content of the motion itself.

In summary, almost the entire motion is poorly argued, illiberal, dishonest and ultimately quite dangerous. Those who created it talk about how "the victim is not to be believed" but such a position is a fundamental part of our justice system. If we suddenly automatically believe every single word of every defendant then why even bother with what would be a show-trial? it would be cheaper and no different to lock up the "rapist" as soon as  their accuser demanded it if factors such as evidence and giving a believable testimony are no longer of any relevance. People are innocent until proven guilty in this country and any jury should have a healthy scepticism of any testimony in court, regardless of whether given by the accused or the accuser and regardless of race or gender.

It's obvious that both men and women lie. Just look at Ms Fiona MacTarggart herself for example. She's known for being rather economical with the truth even on gender issues stating that "something like 80% of women in prostitution are controlled by their drug dealer, their pimp, or their trafficker." When challenged by the BBC on her claim she still insisted it "came from an official Government publication into prostitution and the sex trade". In reality the Home Office themselves state they have "neither made nor cited this calculation." and BBC research into the issue actually came to the conclusion "it is impossible to find that number in any research done on this subject" Should we somehow just believe this nonsense because MacTaggart is female?

Of course there are alternative solutions to reducing the issue of false rape allegations which would reduce any need for anonymity. For example, malicious accusers should serve the same sentence they attempt to inflict not heir victims, should repay the cost of any investigations to the police and should placed on the sex offenders register to ensure the safety of possible future victims. Perhaps some of those listed below are enthusiastic supporters of such proposals though I'm not aware of any of them trying to introduce such legislation or even mentioning such solutions. I certainly can't imagine Ms MacTaggart doing so. Therefore until such evidence comes to light, here are the names of what should be considered the 53 worst MPs in Parliament. People who detest civil liberties to such an extent the believe false accusers should be able to hide behind a blanket of anonymity not afforded to their victims, who couldn't care less about the devastating impact of false accusations and believe in guilty until proven innocent:

Mactaggart, Fiona
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Griffith, Nia
Phillipson, Bridget
Green, Kate
Blears, Hazel
Hodge, Margaret
Jones, Helen
Lazarowicz, Mark
McDonagh, Siobhain
McKechin, Ann
Miller, Andrew
Osborne, Sandra
Coffey, Ann
Curran, Margaret
Eagle, Angela
Efford, Clive
Flint, Caroline
Abbott, Diane
Begg, Anne
Twigg, Stephen
Walley, Joan
Winterton, Rosie
Hodgson, Sharon
Clark, Katy
Cooper, Rosie
Engel, Natascha
Johnson, Diana R
Keeley, Barbara
McCarthy, Kerry
Seabeck, Alison
Glindon, Mary
Alexander, Heidi
Greenwood, Lilian
Berger, Luciana
Hilling, Julie
Jones, Graham
Creasy, Stella
Onwurah, Chinyelu
Reynolds, Jonathan
Umunna, Chuka
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
McKinnell, Catherine
Fovargue, Yvonne
Ali, Rushanara
Skinner, Dennis
Hopkins, Kelvin
Glass, Pat
Vaz, Valerie
Kendall, Liz
Edwards, Jonathan
Mearns, Ian

by John Kimble

SITE REACHES 100,000 PAGE VIEWS

Sorry the site has been a bit quiet recently, both John and I are quite busy people so always looking for other writers, anyhow, many of our regular readers will be pleased to know that we have now had over 100,000 page views since the site was started in 2007.

CONSERVATIVE MP SAYS DENYING MEN NINE BILLION IN PENSIONS NOT DISCRIMINATION

Although the media have been painfully silent in examining the Conservative policy of increasing the pension's gap, they haven't failed completely. Credit for tackling key election issues goes to 5 Live's Stephen Nolan, who as well as looking making a certain deputy leader look rather foolish, also raised the problem of pension's discrimination with Jeremy Hunt of the Conservatives.

Strangely, Hunt had little knowledge of his own party's  policy to raise the state pension age for men to 66 whilst still letting women retire at 60. Despite this, Hunt still defended the policy, informing Nolan he was "absolutely sure we’re not discriminating against men but I don’t know the details".

Fortunately we do know the details of the Conservative policy on this site and we've even conducted the relevant financial calculations. In all, the Conservatives are going to take nine billion pounds away from men aged 65-66 and use the money to fund women's pensions. This will enable women to continue to retire far earlier men, despite the fact women also enjoy significantly longer life expectancies and have generally paid less into national insurance. Quite frankly about the only person who you'd expect to deny claims of sexism here is Harriet Harman herself.

In all fairness I suppose such discrimination isn't likely to have too much impact on men such as Mr Hunt given his £4.1 million wealth, though I'm sure even he'd appreciate he could buy nine hundred billion 1p phone calls with the money he's happy to deny men.

MEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVISM OPPORTUNITY IN LONDON

A pro-equality MRA in London is bringing a damages claim against an elite university's Gender department, for discriminating against him, and men in general, during a taught degree. The case already has the support of a lawyer and barrister, but requires funding. 

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to join us, at an awareness-raising stall, which will be appearing on campuses around Central London.

Broadsheet newspapers have expressed an interest in covering the story, so we can expect the campaign to be high profile.

Interaction with the public will give MRA volunteers a great opportunity to perfect their stand up, debating and persuasion skills, across a full range of men's rights issues.

If interested in volunteering, contact [email protected] for more details.

This case is rock solid, so now is the time to make our move.

CONSERVATIVES ANNOUNCE EVEN MORE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN

Last week we discussed how the Conservatives planned to deny nine billion pounds in pensions to men, instead giving the money to women six years younger. Many may have dismissed such plans to increase the state pensions gap as an oversight and not in keeping with the party's attitudes to men, despite previous warnings such a proposal to use all women short-lists. Today, the party launches it's "equalities" manifesto which brings such debate to an end, confirming the party fully supports sex discrimination against men.

The manifesto pushes so called "positive" discrimination on long lists for directorships, requiring half the candidates to be women. Clearly there is a a lack of females on the boards of bigger companies, but you can't just magic quality professionals out of thin air by introducing quotas.

Exactly the same issue occurs in politics, but the lack of female MPs mostly reflects the lack of suitable  candidates rather than any sort of discrimination. Just as in the workplace women put in less hours and less years into politics and so don't have the experience to make it to the top. As a result, when a party such as Labour introduces all women short-lists, the candidates are of often of low quality and we just tend to see the same faces applying for seat after seat.

The Conservatives top down approach to equality in business is similarly doomed to failure and it's incredibly unfair that half the candidates considered for such key roles will not have be there on merit. Similarly, any females recruited using such methods will be stigmatised for the rest of their careers if they've benefited from such sexism and the economic consequences of reducing the quality of staff running our most important companies doesn't' bare thinking about.

To some, the above policy may not appear too offensive when viewed in isolation, but it's the broader context of the Tory proposals and their other ideas which are worrying. Particularly objectionable is the insistence that any company who's board is less than 30% female will have to describe in their annual report how they will be rectifying the situation. The Conservatives are effectively deeming predominantly male run companies to be sexist automatically, regardless of the evidence. The policy isn't just misguided either - there's a lack of balance too. If the objective is equal outcomes for both sexes the legislation should also surely cover female dominated institutions who are hostile to men and set a 30% minimum of either sex?

Ultimately the only way to create more balance in boardrooms is to change attitudes in society. Unfairness in family law and parental leave forces men to spend more time in the workplace than women, until men have the option of having a family life then they're bound to dominate in the workplace. Similarly, the way for women to gain respect and be able to compete successfully is for them to be treated as equals in all aspects of life, be it in the workplace, the home or in the justice system.

I'm sure you've often heard people complain about how little there is to choose between some of the polices and the antics of Labour and the Conservatives. Today's announcement gives such a sentiment even more credence. Lets at least be thankful the party has had the decency to admit to their position before polling day.

John Kimble

WHY THE BNP COME LAST ON MEN'S RIGHTS

The hard work put in by JK into reviewing the manifestos has been one worth undertaking with just a few days to polling day. Obviously there would be much debate on the merits of each especially the ranking.

In terms of a broader outlook, I would disagree with placing the odious BNP into 3rd place, as they should be in 6th and a long way 6th.

The reason is that they advocate discrimination and antipathy against men who are non-white. One of the general strengths of the female equality movement is that while there are differences between women (different race, sexuality, background), the movement has (generally speaking) stuck together.

Those seeking equality for men should also do the same. That means all men, whether black, white, Asian, gay, straight, able-bodies, disabled etc must stick together under the one banner.

The problem with the BNP is that they don't believe this but would like to discriminate against people based on the colour of their skin. Some men would be treated as being inferior to other men (and women of course) based on their colour.

 It isn't an argument about a policy proposal - it is their ethos, no matter what policies they propose. 

It is why the BNP have to come last in any ranking on men's rights and why they always should be.

Posted by Skimmington