The Rights Of Man

LESSONS FOR THE CAMPAIGN FOR MALE EQUALITY FROM THE SHARED PARENTING CAMPAIGN

So it has now become officialthat the government has rejected not only Norgrove's opposition to the concept of shared parenting but also the wrong headed rejection of it by the previous governments (Conservative and Labour) and the establishment (especially Cafcass and the judiciary).

This also includes those groups such as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the government's Equalities Department and other like minded groups (Fawcett Society anyone?) who proclaim they are in favour of equality while purposely turning a blind eye to the fact that children were (overwhelmingly) not being able to share their lives with their fathers.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission's stance has been particularly sickening because it is clear there has been for decades a clear form of sexual discrimination against fathers in operation not only in the way the judiciary and Cafcass operate but also in the way that many mothers have been allowed to willfully break the law by ignoring court orders (even Ken Clarke on Radio 4's Today Programme on Monday morning bemoaned the fact that mothers broke court orders without any consequence and therefore were undermining the rule of law). Remember, if this was happening with the genders being reversed the Commission would be banging the drum every day. Their silence has been shameful and shows their antipathy towards men.

Until the ink is dry, the legislative statement in place and the judges acting upon it then we can not count our chickens.

However, it is worth reflecting on how the campaign was won.

Firstly, you do need a government that is willing to listen and is not ideologically driven to hate men (the previous government supported ideologically the view that men should not be part of the children's lives). While there is an anti-male element in the coalition government, overall there was a will to deal with this problem because of the family centred views of the two parties that form the coalition. It helps with a cadre of MP's who have had men turning up to their surgeries for years and not being to help. A new cadre of MP's suddenly facing this issue will also have helped.

Secondly, there was a pincer movement of more radical groups who worked outside the tent such as F4J and RF4J who brought the problem to the attention of every member of public and then other groups such as Families Need Fathers, Fatherhood Institute, Grandparents' Apart and Grandparents' Association amongst others who worked within the tent. This pincer and combination of groups broadly making the same arguments in different ways ceaselessly for years and years on end helped to create the framework for this week's result.

In terms of what lesson there can be learned for the future of male equality, dealing with injustice against men and men's issues in general, a few pointers could be made:

(1) The need to never give up - the campaign at all levels went through peaks and troughs but never ended and the campaign for equality for men must never end.

(2) The need for black swans/outliers, and wanting to be outside the tent is always vital. They help lay the ground and open the door for the mainstream. Here, despite the years of great work by FnF and others, if F4J had not brought the problem to the public fore, the impetus for change and the spotlight being shone on the subject in the way it did would never have happened. While this has been such a crucial and fundamental issue, Tom Martin's campaign against the LSE is another example of how the door can be opened and every year there are others (Mirko Fischer vs British Airways) who can make this happen.

(3) While (2) is vital, there also needs to be mainstream groups within the tent trying to influence public policy to ensure the government and others who are naturally conservative with a small 'c' have people they fell they can work with without controversy.

(4)  The need to be firm, consistent, fighting the corner on our terms but doing it in the right tone is also vital. While (3) outlines the need for mainstream groups being in the tent, there is no point being in the tent if it means sacrificing your core aims. This is why the consistency and the firmness of groups within the tent has been important because, especially under the last government, it would have been too easy to have become suckered into the status quo. But groups like FNF stuck to their guns.

A number of other groups working in other fields such as the Men's Network, ManKind Initiative, Abused Men in Scotland, Prostate Cancer Society and others are vital because while they are in the tent and are part of the mainstream they are not losing their message. And on many occasions they are verr firm in what they believe in but the tone is right. This has to be the template going forward.

(5) Turning the equalities and fairness rhetoric against those who abuse it. The last point is to remember often discrimination against men and/or the omission of men, is undertaken in the 'spirit' of fairness and equality. One lesson from this week's announcement has been the way the messaging has been about the unfairness and inequality that children have in not being able to have a relationship with both parents. How could those who believe in those things continue to deny the rights of children in this way.

This (5) has been a powerful tool especially used by some of the groups mentioned in (4) and others in demanding why the women's movement proclaims it is is favour of equality when in practice that equality does not apply to people who happen to be men.

There may be other lessons to be learned but at least this week there is a glimmer of hope for those children wanting to have a meaningful relationship with their fathers and their grandparents who have been denied it so far because of the legal system and their mothers.

Posted by Skimmington 

HOME OFFICE ALIGNS FATHERS 4 JUSTICE WITH TERRORISTS GROUPS

If anyone has been watching the Channel 4 programmes under the umbrella of Black Mirror will understand what a scary Orwellian place the future could be. In an article for the Times Higher Education supplement it has been revealed that the Prevent anti-terrorism strategy has lumped Fathers 4 Justice under the same banner as terrorists.

While many people have many views about F4J, they are not terrorists and only adopted the tactics they did because the family law courts did not (and continue not to) uphold the law over child custody and allow children to have a meaningful relationship with both parents.

To put that on a par with terrorism shows the lack of understanding the Home Office have in thinking that all groups that do not kowtow to the 'system' must be placed in the same group even if some want to kill people like the terrorist groups.

Posted by Skimmington 

LAWBREAKERS AND JUDGES TO BLAME FOR MCEVOY'S CLAIMS

Neil McEvoy, the Cardiff councillor, condemned for accusing Welsh Women's Aid (WWA) of "publicly funded child abuse" because they supported women who break court orders on child access, has had his suspension from Plaid Cymru lifted.

This was after he issued an apology which was accepted depending on his future behaviour (Wales online and BBC).

What the story says is three things:

There are double standards in the gender debate where Harman, Featherstone and Flint (Macbeth anyone?) can come up with spin, half truths and lies on issues such as the effects of the recession on men and women, the Budget, gender pay gap etc and no one bats an eyelid. When a man makes a similar unsubstantiated claim on a gender subject (it is unsubstantiated because he admits he has no evidence) he gets hung out to dry and his head is placed on a spike.

Bearing in mind the double standard, it is why men's groups and commentators have to try and maintain (I know it can be difficult sometimes!) an air or robust responsibility in making claims - a higher level of evidence is needed than is required if you are a member of the Fawcett Society, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission or a Guardian commentator. It is wrong but that is where we are in the anti-male society we live in and shows the malign influence of women's and gender studies.

Thirdly, the whole issue of contact orders and the lack of punishment for those who basically are flouting the Rules of Law in this country remains a disgrace. The fact that Norgrove chose to just shrug his shoulders at lawbreakers and the Ministry of Justice cocks a snook at the men (and sometimes women) who are victims of this mean that people like Neil end up with being so exasperated they make claims like this.

If we had transparency in the family courts, and if CAFCASS and judges took the issue seriously, then perhaps Neil would not have made the claim.

Posted by Skimmington  

GOVERNMENT BELIEVES SUPPORTING MALE ENTREPRENEURS NOT IMPORTANT

So this week started off looking good for men with the first ever Conference for Men and Boys in Brighton and ended terribly with Norgrove's awful report and then the coup de grace was given by Theresa May (she believes in shared parenting as stated on BBC 1's Question Time) when she anniounced setting up an entrepreneurs fund for women and a Women's Business Council with mentors.

"The £700,000 over three year funding will provide 5,000 mentors for new and existing female entrepreneurs as research shows women are only half as likely as men to be engaged in entrepreneurial activity."

This is significant because of course everyone wants a successful economy and everyone be able to use their potential, whether a man or a woman but the genderisation of entrepreneurship is dangerously sexist. While there has been biased funding before and no doubt this continues, entrepreneurship is gender neutral.

We have argued before that this government endorsed sexism means that female entrepreneurs are not taken seriously because they 'only get their capital because they are female' and also it squeezes the opportunities for young male enrtrepreneurs - as if male entrepreneurs are second class.

This is even more damaging when you see the state of the economy and how desperate we are for unemployed men (currently 1.5 million and a rate of 75.4% as opposed to 1 million and a rate of 65.4% women)to get onto the employment ladder (and women of course).

So why are there are special schemes for female entrepreneurs and why is the government talking them up when the economy needs male and female entrepreneurs. Is May really saying, just like Harman before her, that a Rodean educated woman needs help to be an entrepreneur while a white/black working class boys from a Peckham council estate who went to a sink school doesn't. Its sexist.

This week we have the men being shut out of fatherhood and now we have them being shut on our the economy and being able to create jobs for themselves, their families and others.

Men are being deliberately crushed.

Posted by Skimmington

NORGROVE BETRAYS FATHERS AND CHILDREN - WILL THE COALITION GOVERNMENT?

As the report was announced yesterday and the coverage has been extensive, the betrayal by Norgrove of fathers, grandparents and children can be fully seen. Though some commentators are in shock this site did discuss that it was on the cards, however, it is worse because at least in the interim report there was to be some recognition of shared parenting - now there is none.

Why did Norgove make matters worse? He comes up with feeble excuses about definitions and irrelevances from Australia which made no sense.

Things Norgrove was clear on were:

• He does not believe that fathers and grandparents have any role or are relevant to the successful upbringing of children.
• He believes there is no anti-father bias in the courts
• He believes the people represented by by FnF, F4J and others groups are so small they are not wort worrying about (listen to his interview on Radio 4's Today Programme 2hr 32 min in - you need to click on the right hand side). He actually effectively says this.
• He believes there should be no link between child maintenance and access (what can a man do against a recalcitrant law breaking mother?), though he believes in tougher enforcement.

This is all wrong and it is clear he that while he says everything is in the interests of the child, he doesn't think it is in the interests of child to have contact with their father. It is almost the same issue about the IVF treatment in the news update on Wednesday where the law says it does not matter that a child born through IVF does not have a father around.

The only two straws of hope is that the coalition government said it believed in shared parenting, though, this seemed more around from pregnancy rather than the concept we are talking about. It did also say it wanted better access arrangements for separated couples and grandparents.

The last piece is that Iain Duncan Smith has waded in and will do all he can to persuade the government to reject Norgrove's view that shared parenting does not not matter. Let us hope this is a battle he wins.

Posted by Skimmington

Some of the media coverage (plus read comments)- BBC, Christine Odone (Telegraph), Daily Mail, Telegraph

Please add more links if there are other worthwhile articles

LEGAL AID REFORMS GIVE MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR DESTROYING FATHERS

There has been a steady drip drip campaign against legal aid reforms that will mean far more restrictions being placed on access to legal aid. This is mainly to do with dealing with a lack of government funding. Funding restrictions on family disputes will mean that only on cases of domestic violence, child marriage or forced marriage will legal aid still be available.

Entitled a Manifesto for Family Justice , a manifesto that only mentions women and has no groups representing male victims included (probably because they were not asked as unsurprisngly according to the press release domestic abuse only happens to women - usual story of institutional sexism), raises a number of points of concern and interest. One potentially positive for men and two potentially negative based on the law of unintended consequences and unequal justice.

Without going into the why's or wherefore's in detail, but restrictions on legal aid will in the main help fathers as it evens up the playing field. As we know vast numbers, who despite going through mediation, face the entrenched legal aid funded (ex) wives/partners who want to fight and sometimes lie to stop their children being able to have regular contact with their father. 

The man goes bankrupt paying legal fees while the ex racks up the fees on legal aid, and still there are the demands for CSA payments.

So the changes could be a good thing as it will stop the insidious practice of women deliberately going to court because of her hatred of the father of her children.

However, and this is a point picked up before by the Chairman of the Bar Council, Peter Lodder QC, in January. If legal aid is restricted to a certain defined area in family law cases then the law of unintended consequences and human nature means that any unscrupulous and greedy solicitor will advise people to try to steer their case that way so it becomes eligible for legal aid. 

So some women, because they want legal aid, will be steered towards making false allegations of domestic abuse against men. Even more so then those that already do in the family courts.

The Manifesto also picks up the effect of restricting legal aid to just the alleged victims of domestic abuse meaning they will be then cross-examined by the perpetrators. This is an importnat yet secondary point as this does not get round the central point of actually encouraging false allegations in the first place - a scourge of the family courts and domestic abuse generally.

The main point on the restriction and this is the real double whammy for men is that not only will the restrictions encourage false allegations, men if they are the ones accused will not be elgible for legal aid (see answer 80 in Parliament here). This is why they would be undertaking the cross examination because they cannot afford a lawyer and cannot get the legal aid.

As Peter Lodder QC says in Parliament: "In court, someone who may be facing a false allegation will have to defend himself—it will probably be himself—and will risk losing everything: children, liberty, home, you name it. They will have to defend themselves in that circumstance. We do not see how that can possibly advance access to justice." 

Even if he does have the opportunity for cross-examining his ex, he is unlikely to be as good as a solicitor or barrister trained in this. Men will lose.

One point that is strange and shows how people or an organisation may be influenced and lobbied to change or soften a view is about the manifesto. It is created by the Bar Council whose Chairman is Brian Lodder QC but he is the one who made the perfectly reasonable comments to the Standard in January and in Parliament. Why is the issue about encouraging false allegations not in the manifesto nor the fact that men on the end of a false allegation will not have access to legal aid (it mentions this indirectly on the cross examination issue but why not directly)? Why the sudden silence?? 

Why was this not included - we know Women's Aid and CAADA who signed up to the manifesto would not be pleased to sign up to document that suggested false allegations even existed as that does not fit with their women=good, men=bad school of thought. So they did they have influence on it and wanted those issues dropped before agreeing to sign up?

While the legal aid reforms on the one hand seem to be advantageous to fathers as it evens up the playing field when arranging custody and access arrangements, the scourge of the false allegation and the lack of support for men to defend themselves show these are dangerous and are likely to damage men further.

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage - Guardian, Guardian 2, Guardian 3

NEWS UPDATE

Just a few articles, including one following up from yesterday:

Daily Mail - Father falsely acused of being a paedophile by ex-wife tells his story (Jenny Johnson) - Proof of the power of the false accusation.

Daily Mail - Wicked women jailed for crying rape

ManKind Initiative - Sponsor Emily Spink at the Great North Run

Evening Standard - Feminist group plans cuts backlash (Anna Davis) - Did they see the GCSE results this week?

Financial Times - Why women are losing the battle for jobs (Liz Bolshaw) - Does the author of this actually look at the unemployment figures which show far more men are unemployed!

Daily Telegraph - Legal case stops expats moving children abroad (Henry Brookman)

BBC - Tubecrush site taking pictures of men on the Underground (Matt Cooke): Women are allowed to post pictures of men without their permission but not the other way - an everyday example of sexism against men in the UK.

Posted by Skimmington

MENS MATTERS - JULY 2011

Latest edition of James Williams' Mens Matters on Express FM

NEWS UPDATE

A few articles of interest (perhaps)

Town Hall - The new battleground of child custody reform (Rachel Alexander)

Parliament - 91 men raped in 2010 and 222 male victims of sexual assualt :scroll down

Guardian - Clare's Law offers nothing but empty empowerment (Libby Brooks): the comments section full of men demanding to know if it helps them - the male voice for equality is not silent.

The Observer - The rape of men (Will Storr): coverage of the shameful deliberate silence on this issue

Men's Network - New council post targets men : Is this a first?

The Guardian - Why are we afraid of male sexuality (Ally Fogg)

The Guardian - Norway's boardroom quotas are working (Agnes Bolso): Not if you are talented man excluded from the boardroom becuase of your gender - but who is interested in that.

Posted by Skimmington

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LAUNCHES PLATFORM FOR EUROPEAN FATHERS

A few weeks ago the House of Commons Justice Committee produced its report into the Family Courts system. I couldn't see anything about the bias against men by Cafcass and the magistrates or the need to deal with systematic breach of contact orders.

Also recently the European Parliament shows that it takes fathers more seriously than the UK Parliament by launching the Platform for European Fathers. The UK were represented by the Fatherhood Institute and Mensaid.

Good luck to those involved.

Posted by Skimmington