The Rights Of Man

NEW PETITION ON CSA - MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS : PLEASE SIGN

Chris Lavender has placed a new government e-petition on the CSA. I would urge all readers to sign it. The petition is available here (link).

The text is:-

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to stop with immediate effect, the discrimination against non-resident parents who pay CSA maintenance calculated under the 'old' system.

As a non-resident parent I pay Child maintenance to the CSA which is calculated under the old system. The new system stipulates payments of 15% (for one child), 20% (for two children) and 25% (for three or more children)of net salary.

This leaves many like myself who consider it right and just to contribute to the cost of bringing up our child(ren), paying way over the percentages stated above because of calculations made under the old system.

To make matters worse, the only explanations that are given for this discrimination is that either there is a new computer system still being trialed or that the government is waiting for the 'new department' to be established. How much longer must we wait? Act now, sign my petition and let's have justice for ourselves and above all our children who also suffer when we are unable to survive ourselves on an inadequate income!

Editors Note : There are other worthwhile petitions worth signing- see here (link)

MARK HARRIS' BOOK SHINES LIGHT INTO THE FAMILY COURT SYSTEM THAT GOVERNMENT DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW

Last week was a crucial week in shining a light into the anti-male Kafka-esque family court system.

There was the case of Mr Cox, jailed against his ex-wife's wishes, for failing to pay maintenance even though he looked after his children 50% of the time (see previous post).

The other issue was the publication of a book by Mark Harris called Family Court Hell (link). In the synopsis from the Daily Mail* article (link) : "Denied access to his three children after his divorce, Mark was jailed for standing outside his house to wave them. It took ten years and 133 hearing before they were reunited." The article and book speak for themselves and proved that courts are not willing to enforce contact orders. There is a great interview with Mark broadcast on Radio 2 - Monday 25th June (link) 40 minutes in. 

Apart from the individual issue, the most telling thing is that the secrecy of the family court system is something that the government actively supports. In June, Lord Falconer, the then Lord Chancellor refused to open up the family court system to public scrutiny, despite the campaigns by family groups (link), (link), (link). 

A spokesman for high-profile Fathers4Justice said: "To have secret justice in a 21st century democracy is a disgrace and goes against everything we are supposed to believe in.

"The family courts are not just a closed shop - they are more like something out of North Korea. The way they work means parents have fewer rights than terrorists."

What seems clear that the government, obviously advised by CAFCASS (see post link)  and the feminist fundamentalist movement, feel that despite the obvious natural justice and accountability arguments, they are not interested in being scrutinsed and continue to want to play God and an anti-male God at that.

The fight still continues. 

* Good debate as well

THE MICHAEL COX COURT CASE SHOWS THE BIZARRE JUSTICE AT THE HEART OF THE CSA AND FUNDAMENTALISM

The case this week of Michael Cox, the lawyer who was jailed for 42 days for refusing to pay child support over a 12 year period shows the madness at the heart of the CSA and feminist fundamentalism.

The decision is a victory for the CSA robots (as described by a female lawyer on BBC Breakfast this week) who in their unthinking and unblinking fashion chose to push through this prosecution even though Mr Cox's former wife pleaded against it. It goes against all aspects of natural justice as Mr Cox looked after the children 50% of the time but because his wife is named as the responsible parent, the CSA ignored this.  The CSA seemed to relish this prosecution as no doubt the civil servants involved wanted to show how tough they are before they are no doubt moved to the new organisation. They will be probably get a bonus such is the life in the Kafka-esque (the law is the law, no matter how mad) world they inhabit.

It is also a victory for feminist fundamentalism. They have successfully bastardised the use of language as Mr Cox is described legally as an absent parent/father, when he obviously is not. It also is a victory for those fundamentalists who do not trust fathers and mothers to come to a mutually amicable agreement without using the CSA. Any such agreement is a defeat. The fundamentalists have used the CSA to interfere in these arrangements and give them an element of control with the father always looking to be cast as the bad guy.

The fact that everyone is involved in this case is a victim is of no consequence to the CSA or the fundamentalists. Mr Cox, his new wife, his ex-wife (who now has to give up work to look after her children 100% of the time) and obviously the children are all victims. Not just personally, but they are pawns in the battle that the fundamentalists wage.

The one lesson for couples with children who break up amicably is to avoid the CSA at all costs.

Note : The issue was well covered in the media which is a good sign because it shows how extraordinary the case was. There were some good debates in The Times (link)  and The Daily Mail (list). Other coverage is here :- (link), (link), (link), (link) and (link)

MEN'S RIGHTS PETITIONS - UPDATE

There are currently three government e-petitions being circulated at the moment. Please sign them, if you have not done so already.

MInister for Men Petition - (link) : 266 signatories so far.

Male Victims of Domestic Violence - (link) : 196 signatories so far.

Family Equality - (link) : 116 signatories so far.

If you know of anymore, please let me know at [email protected]

CSA STORY SHOWS HOW THE MEDIA AND POLITICIANS SPIN ABSENT FATHERS

When David Cameron said in February 2007 "We need to make it as socially unacceptable for fathers to avoid their responsibilities as drink driving now is", the hearts of thousands of men sank.

Fathers, in another victory for political correctness, were once again seen as easy targets for further stigmatisation by politicians, the courts, the CSA and the media. It is almost as if the politicians think only men are to blame for a divorce (70% of divorces are started by a woman) and that men CHOOSE not to want to live with their children.

Fathers Day, would have been the hardest day of the year for many fathers who despite paying their dues, are denied access to their children because the mothers of their children deny them access and the courts fail to enforce contact orders. Fathers have few places to make their suffering heard and whilst some turned to Fathers4Justice campaigns, others are turning to blogs/web-sites/support groups which seem to spring up on a weekly basis.

There are very few supportive commentators in the mainstream media and the awful anti-male and factually incorrect spin put on the CSA replacement storys by the media (except the BBC - link) last week (link) gives little succour.

The story (link) combined the announcement of the newly created Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (C-MEC) with the story that absent parents will be named and shamed on various web-sites, alongside all manner of punishments including taking money directly out of people's bank accounts. This is scary Big Brother/Stalinist stuff especially considering how awful the CSA was at calculating the right money and how they drove some men to suicide.

The spin and distortion that turned the story from one of absent parents to one of 'deadbeat dads' was shocking even by today's standards and especially when it is based on a myth.

The Guardian in 2006 (link), revealed that "The popular image of feckless fathers who leave the marital home and refuse to pay any money towards the upkeep of their former wife and children has been much exaggerated, according to new figures from the CSA."

The figures showed that in a three month sample period, 30% of non-resident parents were non-payers. 31% of women did not pay whilst it was 30% of men.

All mainstream media except the BBC, changed the wording in the CSA announcement though from absent parents to:-

Mortgage bans  for 'deadbeat dads' who won't pay up (Daily Mail - 7th June 2007)

Fathers who are absent to be fined automatically (The Guardian - 6th June 2007)

Credit blacklist for absent fathers who don't pay (The Daily Telegraph - 7th June 2007)

100 absent fathers to be named by child agency (The Times - 7th June 2007)

Web list will make dodgy fathers pay (The Metro - 7th June 2007)

Absent dads face fines crackdown (Daily Express - 6th June 2007)

Named and shamed on the net (Daily Mirror - 6th June 2007)

Dodging Fathers to be Fined (The Sun - 6th June 2007)

This distortion by the British media shows how sub-consciously and lazily anti-male and anti-father many elements of society have become. Let's hope that next Father's Day, the terrible portrayal of British fathers by politicians and the media will have changed.    

HAPPY FATHER'S DAY

Hope as many fathers as possible get a chance to see their children today.

WHY THE NSCFC DO NOT WANT HARRIET HARMAN TO BECOME DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

As the Deputy Prime Minister contest hots up within the Labour Party, the National Society for Children and Family Contact (NSCFC - link) have declared that the worst possible winner for fathers and families would be Harriet Harman. Their press releases are listed here (link) and their release on this subject is listed below.

NSCFC on Harriet Harman 

First it must be said that Harriet Harman is possibly the worst anti family politician to ever hold office, hence if her power and influence is increased it would be one of the saddest days for the family in particular and society in general and this despite her claims to the contrary. But why, you may well ask? Well, let us just look at the facts behind the woman and her ideology. In 1990, Harriet Harman (who became a Cabinet minister), Anna Coote (who became an adviser to Labour's Minister for Women) and Patricia Hewitt (yes, she's in the Labour Cabinet, too!) expressed their beliefs in a social policy paper called “The Family Way”.

It said: "It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion." This in itself as Erin Pizzey founder of the first battered wives refuge said of late was a staggering attack on men and their role in modern life and in my view a forerunner of what was to come, a very subtle yet insidious agenda inflicted on families of a kind never witnesses before.

Hewitt, in a book by Geoff Dench called Transforming Men published in 1995, said: "But if we want fathers to play a full role in their children's lives, then we need to bring men into the playgroups and nurseries and the schools. And here, of course, we hit the immediate difficulty of whether we can trust men with children."

For nearly four decades, these pernicious attitudes towards family life, fathers and boys have permeated the thinking of our society to such an extent that male teachers and carers are now afraid to touch or cuddle children and as for fathers they fear to embrace their daughters.

Men can be accused of domestic violence towards their partners and sexual abuse without evidence. Courts discriminate against fathers and refuse to allow them access to their children on the whims of vicious partners. And yes let’s be frank here, this is all down to the feminist movement and the agenda I mentioned earlier, divide and conquer was and still is the plan and it comes in many different guises of this there is no doubt! So when Harriet Harman says Families need practical support one needs to ask just what her definition of family really is given her staggering attack on men and their role in modern life back in 1990 or is this simply another case of deception and spin?

Fact being, since 1997 when Labour came to office nearly 400,000 children have needlessly lost contact with their fathers due to the unjust family court system which favours mothers and denies children and fathers the Right to family life as should be so in accordance with Human Rights Act article 8 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Sadly due to Labour policy and ideology re family law 100 children per day loose contact and over one million grandparents like all grandparents have no legal presumption to see their grandchildren, indeed all the paternal side of the child’s family is removed after separation or divorce by judges who put the interest of mothers before the best interest of the children.

Result being that the innocent children involved have lost out on the very role models they need and are entitled to. So now we have a generation of children stripped of their right to be nourished and cherished by the paternal side of their family in their formative years hence its no wonder therefore that we now see a rise in dysfunctional and anti social children. For Ms Harman to be in support of the traditional family her priority since coming to office would have been to give Human Rights to fathers and the paternal side of a child’s family only then could we say she had the best interest of society at heart, instead she has continued in her ideology that men are not an asset to family life and as such has endorsed the downward spiral of our youth and society by so doing.

Suffice to say Harriat Harman and her ilk has been the main driving force behind the destruction of the traditional family this to the detriment of the very fabric of society itself. We for our part at the NSCFC will continue to highlight the governments destructive policy which undermines the marriage based family, fact being according to UNICEF the traditional family unit is by far the most stable environment for children to grow up in and as such condemns both Ms Harman and her party for continuing to undermine it.

That Ms Harman would now become Deputy Prime Minister is by far the worst of all possible outcomes for families and society alike, this based purely and simply on her track record and ideology alone and yes if she has her way the traditional family and its values will be no more.

SUPPORT THE USA EQUAL PARENTING BIKE TREK

On August 11th 2007 Robert Pedersen and Rob Mackenzie from the USA will start a bicycle trek covering over 600 miles from Lansing, Michigan to Washington, D.C.. 

The two fathers are going to attempt this trip all in the name and support of shared parenting. They are doing this to protect a child's right to EQUAL time with BOTH fit parents.

For further information, please visit Daddyblogger.com at http://daddy.typepad.com/daddyblog/2007/04/robert_and_rob_.html

SIGN THE PETITION ON FAMILY EQUALITY

In addition to the petition calling for a Minister for Men (link), there is now a petition calling for equality on Family Law. The petition is submitted by Robert Lamb and it states:-

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Change the law to ensure it is the norm for there to be joint custody when parents divorce/separate.

At present the law favours women in terms of custody of children, taking it as the norm that children remain with the mother. I feel this breaches human rights and equal opportunity laws discriminating against the rights of children and men. In many European countries the norm is joint custody by law. If the UK law were reversed and men were the beneficiaries then I am certain womens' lobbists would decry this as sexual discrimination.

We are often told Fathers are equal parents when referrring to financial responsibilities but this is also the case in terms of emotional development for children. As such they deserve equal footing with mothers. Men and women are supposed to be treated with equality for employment, education and criminal law and women's rights are protected by UK, European and Interantional law as well as a host of campaigners. Should not family law then provide for the same equal treatment regardless of gender?

You can sign the petition here (link).

THE ORPHAN GRANDPARENTS

The Daily Mail (link) ran a spread on grandparents being the forgotten victims of bitter family break-ups.

The article is based on a grandmother, Pam Wilson, who was deliberately denied access to her grand-daughter after the divorce of her son from the grand-daughter's mother. There is a web-site www.gaguk.net for anyone interested further in this issue.

The story is all too familiar for thousands of people all over the country, especially fathers.