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 

PARISH NOTICE: UPDATE FROM TOM MARTIN

Press Release – January 30^th, 2012.

 

Tom Martin v LSE's Gender Institute: Update

 

Tom Martin's sex discrimination lawsuit against Europe's largest gender studies department at The London School of Economics (LSE) has been delayed, a hearing now rescheduled for March 13^th. Tom has given an interview for a programme on satellite news channel Press TV on 'the future of feminism', which awaits broadcast, and also, has recently been invited to take part in a debate at University College London (UCL), on the prevalence of misandry in academia and society, a date not yet set. Tom invites all other press and media to contact him directly: [email protected].

 Tom thanks all 120 people from 9 countries who have now donated a total of £4013.25 to the legal fighting fund so far, and asks supporters to keep the donations coming in and the momentum going, by subscribing on twitter, facebook and youtube, and spreading the word in any other way they can for what could be a long, difficult, but ultimately game-changing awareness-raising and legal campaign.

 

CORONATION STREET ACTOR CLEARED - ANOTHER REASON FOR ANONYMITY

During the autumn the story broke that Coronation Street actor Michael le Vell (he plays Kevin Webster) was accused of child sex allegations and arrested and bailed. The story was front page news everywhere and his name was dragged through the mud.

A few days ago it was announced that the CPS had dropped the charges because of 'insufficient evidence'. The CPS were very weaselly in the words they chose in stating the charges were dropped.

Due to the nature of the accusation and his public profile and the publicity it therefore received, he will forever sadly have this associated with him.

This is why the government's backing down on granting anonymity to rape defendants unless found guilty was such a betrayal. Not just because Michael's case is another example of how someone's name can be dragged through the mud based on a false accusation (if he is not being prosecuted then it must be false - surely) but also because the coalition government put it in their manifesto.

Another sad chapter in the anti-male society we live in and to the anti-male modern-day feminists, he is just collateral damage.

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  

WHY DOES WEST MIDLANDS POLICE NOT SUSPEND THESE OFFICERS?

Tuesday the site covered this awful and pathetic sentence and then along comes newsfrom West MIdlands police who give Jess Cooper a £80 fixed penalty fine for making a false rape allegation which ended up with one man in hospital and another in a cell. The anger from the 192 comments tell a clear story.

The West Midlands police should be at least suspending the officers involved and publicly saying so. Firing would not be a problem either. Why the silence from them when these officers thought the false claim no different to someone caught shoplifting? The police did take forward this case so it is not as though all West Midlands police ignore the issue.

If the police are really clear on wanting to deal with the issue or false rape allegations, they must make examples of these officers and publicly do so. Otherwise two men hurt by this have been dealt an incredible injustice and the police are turning a blind eye to it. And Jess Cooper has let every poor women who is raped down as well, do the police not consider that either.

Still we all know where the Women's Justice Taskforce stand - another victory in their campiagn to end equality in justice.

Posted by Skimmington

MORE NEEDED TO MAKE SURE DOMESTIC ABUSE EQUALITY BECOMES A REALITY

Monday saw a post about how the media forget male victims exist and not helped by the government who often forget that men are victims too (Sonia Poulton wrote a great piece righting that wrong). The problem with the government is while their policies are gender neutral they are often not explained that way (including by them) and they certainly not applied that way.

A case in point (and pointed out by a kind reader) was this pathetic suspended sentence of a woman who attacked a man with a golf club and was not sent to jail. If the genders were reversed does anyone really believe this is all a man would have got?

The government though has announced that it will be launching this week a fund to help male victims (see question 4) at least it is some recognition bar giving the Men's Advice Line (run by the awful Respect) money for its helpline.

The issue is that small initiatives are welcome and so is a gender neutral policy but more, much more, has to be done to make sure the support and recognition is happening on the ground. Pathetic and sexist sentences are one such example of how discrimination remains rife in domestic abuse.

Posted by Skimmington

THE ENDING OF BLIND AND EQUAL JUSTICE FOR MEN CONTINUES

In today's anti-male Britain, we have laws and organisations wanting to end equality of opportunity for men and women.

We have all three political parties colluding to discriminate and make it harder for a man than a women to be a politician, a range of organisations and politicians doing the same for boardrooms and the same for stopping men and women from being paid depending on their contribution to a company (gender pay gap).

We also now that with the destruction of equality in education - boys are falling way behind girls at school and no one gives a hoot.

Justice though is meant to be blind as we have pointed out before some groups like the Women's Justice Taskforce do not want women to go to prison but are not bothered about how many men go there. They are happy and popping the champagne corks when people like Maria Topp get a suspended sentence. 

At the other end of the scale, with far more women becoming solicitors and barristers than men, we will soon have more female judges  etc. Not a problem if they are there on merit and are not men-haters.

But yesterday someone called Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury actually waded in and said he wanted to sexually discriminate against men by making it harder for them to be judges yet making it easier for women to be judges. Merit is not up for discussion and does not count. Just like the political world and just like now in the boardroom.

He wants to use the anti-male Section 159 of the Equalities Act, probably the most pernicious anti-male piece on the statute books, to promote women over men.

So at one end we have no equality in prison sentences and now there is a call for no equality in those making the decisions to send people to prison. From every direction, equality of men is disappearing from Britain's justice system.

Posted by Skimmington  

Media coverage (quite a lot on this so some of the main ones) - Press Association, Daily Mail (Donal Blaney), Daily Mail, Daily Mail (Quentin Letts)

 

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

PLEASE DONATE TO TOM MARTIN'S CAMPAIGN - IT IS VITAL

In April this year the site reported that Tom Martin was trying to get funds together to sue the London School of Economics because their gender studies course was sexist against men.

Tom has made a plea to all those interested in male equality to help him fund his legal case - no matter how small a donation you can give - please do so via this site. He needs another £1,100.

Please also forward to others you know - to encourage them to donate.

This case is more than just a personal issue affecting Tom, it is a vital cause that if successful and will have long lasting postive effects for male equaility in the whole of the UK. If it fails, then there will continue to be no check on the unrelenting anti-male culture we have in the UK fuelled by gender studies courses arming armies of anti-male feminists up and down the country.

It is always worth remembering that the anti-male feminists of today will be the power brokers of tomorrow. This is what happened from the late 70's onwards where thousands of women were radicalised into the men=bad, women=good worldview that has meant men have been second class citizens in Britain. Those women who were radicalised now hold senior positions throughout the public sectors, the media, the arts and in politics.

As more and more 'positive' discrimination takes place in the UK further relegating men in the future, those radicalised now will be able to do even more damage to equality because they will be given even more a leg up into top positions.

This is why Tom's campaign is vital.

The second issue worth commenting on is analysing of the commentary the case has received and the response of the LSE. There has been coverage in The Standard, The Guardian (1,130 comments!), Camden New Journal, Forbes and Spearhead.

Tom has told this site that "all the excuses used in the Guardian article, and by the defence, are known ruses, which I have the experience to debunk entirely in court. I researched gender issues and rhetoric for 5 years before entering LSE's Gender Institute, so will get the job done, funds permitting."

Firstly, with any campaigns that threaten the anti-male orthodxoy is that they try and portray the campaigners as being women-haters. You get this from the tone of the Guardian article and in feminist circles right now (The F Word), this will be how Tom will be portrayed. This will also come through official bodies and there will be whisperings against him now. We all know who these organisiation are - some of them taxpayer funded.

Secondly, it is worth studying the LSE's comments in their response in the Standard article -

The university's legal team has asked for the case to be struck out, claiming the core texts were not compulsory, merely recommended readings, and that the texts were equally available for both men and women to read, so therefore did not directly discriminate against men. The team also argues that "any discriminatory effect [against men] was plainly justifiable".

Now obviously this may or may not be the whole statement but the LSE's legal team actually agree that any discriminatory effect is OK. Can you dare imagine what would be the case if the genders were reversed - they would never publish such a statement. It also proves once and for all how discrimination against men is seen as normal, that there is nothing wrong in it and that it should be encouraged.

This is why Tom's campaign is vital - victory will support every man, every boy and every woman who likes men.

If there is one thing or cause you support this year, please make it this one.

Posted by Skimmington