The Rights Of Man

ARTICLES UPDATE

A few articles for the end of the month.

Daily Mail - Woman chopped off man's penis as he 'attempted to rape her' before taking it to the police as evidence (Rob Cooper) - Read the awful awful misandry in the comments section.

Jersey News - Male domestic abuse stigma is shattered 

BBC Wales - Pale male courts need more women judges - More calls for discrimination against men

The Guardian - How the government is letting down women (Polly Curtis)

Posted by Skimmington

BRITAIN'S CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE ON MALE CIRCUMCISION

The issue of un-consenting male genital mutilation (circumcision) is a subject not tackled before on the website but as un-consenting female genital mutilation is a subject that continues to rightly garner much attention the lack of attention on men again is a symptom of how men are given second class status in Britain's society.

Lets get things clear before the site is hoisted on the petard, female genital mutilation is an awful crime that should be stopped - no right thinking person could ever support it (a curiosity of the internal conflict and hypocrisy in the politically correct metropolitan elite is the fact they criticise the practice but not the religious views of those who carry it out.)

But why does unconsenting male genital mutilation not recieve any attention in the UK?

If you look at the recent BBC article and its definition, can someone tell me broadly what the difference is between the females and males - its all about culture and religion. In fact female genital mutilation has been illegal since 1985 (a good overview in the Times) and governments spend a lot of money tackling it and have guidance on how to fight it.

There are some debates here and there on the UK web (Digital spy, Yahoo) and the BBC has a similar page as the one on female circumcision. But the practice has supporters not just in Judaism, Islam but it has consent through a conspiracy of silence, hypocrisy and double standards.

For un-consenting girls and boys, circumcision is illegal for the former but legal for that matter.

The British Medical Association doesn't protest or abhor it in men, the Scottish government  gives guidance on it but does not mention why it should not be practiced and of course there is nothing from the British government. The Minister for Women and Equalities is not interested when equality means equality for men.

So why the hypocrisy. It comes down to the power shift in the British political, cultural, social, state and media system since the late seventies that has meant men have become the second sex. A victory that the feminist fundamentalists have secured. This is because there is no logical, rational or balanced reason in a society that allegedly proclaims itself as being equal that can state that female circumcision is wrong and illegal but male circumcision in fine and legal. When do you hear a MP talking about this in Parliament?

The government and medical establishment in the the UK believe it is OK because of their silence on the issue  - it gives this horrendous practice tacit approval. Silence means assent.

In America, opposition is a lot more active as can be seen in San Francisco (Daily Mail) where there is now a campaign to ban it.  Such a campaign should be started in the UK in addition to that run by  Dr John Warren at NORM-UK.

Posted by Skimmington

Editors note - This is sick in the Philippines, can you imagine the outcry if women were abused in this way!

  

HISTORY OF THE CAMPAIGN FOR EQUAL STATE PENSION AGES

Later this year Parity will effectively be celebrating its 25th anniversary and John Taylor kindly sent over the history of the Campaign for Equal State Pension Ages (CESPA) which latterly became Parity. It is a fascinating read. Please read it here - Download History of CESPA _Parity. 

One of the key lessons is the fact that discriminated men should use equality laws to fight for equality. We saw what happened with British Airways and Eversheds last year when men went to the law.

The campaign by CESPA which supported and gave encouragement to men to ensure they received equality when it came to state pensions age (coming eventually) and a raft of other equality issues linked to retirement (especially bus passes and winter fuel payments). Without these men, this discrimination would still be occurring.

Posted by Skimmington

Editiors note - the story of this brave lad (Chris Whitehead) shows why putting your head above the parapet is important.

IN THE NAME OF EQUALITY - CAN YOU SUPPORT A LAW SUIT AGAINST A LONDON UNIVERSITY?

ACTION ALERT: Gender Studies Law suit in London

 

 

An egalitarian MRA is bringing a damages claim against an elite university's Gender Studies department which he attended as a student, but was forced to withdraw from due to the persistantly sexist anti-male nature of the course. His legal claim is based on Sex Discrimination law, Breach of Contract, Misleading Advertising and Misrepresentation – and he is looking for pro bono support from a lawyer or barrister, or assistance from a 'McKenzie friend' – someone not necessarily legally qualified, but who can nevertheless offer advisory support and strategy in court.

The university's promotional literature did not warn of the one-sided anti-male learning materials that would form the bulk of the curriculum – and the university's prospectus and regulations, forming part of the contract, specifically rule out discriminatory learning materials and practices – so the facts of the case are uniquely strong - on a number of fronts - and a successful litigation here will help bring about real improvements for the future inclusion of men and men's equality issues within gender studies, and all other academic fields.

The complainant will be filing particulars of claim no later than May 10^th 2011. The court case itself will take place in the months to follow. If you, or anyone you know of might be interested in offering any kind of support, including financial, then please email the complainant at the following address:- [email protected]

Thank you.

CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE - MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE DO NOT EXIST

I know the site bangs on sometimes about discrimination by omission being one of the most covert, insidious and invsible forms of discrimination against men, but it is used as a weapon so much.

One of the starkest examples was in the field of domestic abuse when Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions at the Crown Prosecution Service, launched a new domestic violence initiative and set out in his speech entitled - Domestic Violence: the facts, the issues and the future.

All male victims and those men and women who support and know them will weep at its content.

There is not one mention of men in the press release nor in the speech. Nothing at all. There are no facts about them.

It shows clearly that the Crown Prosecution Service - the state prosecutor that supposedly ensures there is justice in Britain and the upholder of equality before the law - has no interest at all in equality when it comes to domestic violence.

As shown by the government figures (via the ManKind Initiative), one in three victims are male yet they get no mention. 

What makes it worse is that in his speech Keir Starmer provides a whole bank of statistics on female victims yet there is no mention of the reciprocal male statistics even though they are from the same research. For example:

• Two women a week are killed by a partner or ex-partner (the figure is one per fortnight for men) - British Crime Survey 
• 1 million women were victims of domestic abuse last year (700,000 men were also) - British Crime Survey
• 19% per cent of women have said they have been stalked since 16 (9% of men also report the same) - British Crime Survey. Read this about Facebook.
 

Part of the reason for the announcement was to ensure that all domestic abuse murders were reviewed as set out by the BBC (it is worth noting that the BBC use the figure for men which means all the lobbying has worked because a year ago they would not have done - congratulations to the BBC).

What the attitude of the Crown Prosecution Service shows (it also has 'previous') is that it thinks domestic abuse only happens to women and never to heterosexual or gay men. If the Director of Public Prosecutions cannot even bring himself to mention male victims of domestic abuse in his speech, press release or list of facts then what hope is there for male victims to ensure justice is served.

What hope is there also that the review into domestic abuse murder cases will be treat with the same diligence a murder of man as opposed to a woman. 

There is no equality of justice if you are a male victim of domstic abuse, the Crown Proscution Service do not recognise they exist.

These are the facts, the issues and the future from male victims, courtesy of the Crown Prosecution Service.

Posted by Skimmington 

 

Editors Note - a few updates on male victims:

BBC News - Esteem in Cornwall

American Psychological Association (British professor) - Male victims can suffer post traumatic stress

Daily Mirror - Saving the lives of men

ManKind Initiative - New videos and Dads on the Air (Chairman interview)

GOVERNMENT CRUSHES FATHER'S HOPES IN SHAM REVIEW

Sorry for the lack of posts recently, been a very busy time working long hours with the downside being that lack of time to work on the blog but even worse it means I will have been contributing to the extension of the 'mythical' gender pay gap.

This week saw the publication of the interim report of the Family Justice Review which partly is addressed at dealing with the escalating cost of the family law system (both public and private), the time delays/bureaucracy and also looking at how to improve things for fathers and grandparents.

We all know through years of bitter experience and years of campaigning how the family law system system is corrupt and unfair to both children and grandparents alike.

Corrupt because CAFCASS, social services and many judges are anti-male and anti-father with CAFCASS and social services corrupted by feminist fundamentalism with many in positions of power being 'educated' in the 70's and 80's. This has often been done in tandem with solicitors and judges who have played along - solicitors just want their money. The outcome being the undermining of the fundamental natural requirement of a child being allowed to have the presence of their father in their life and the father from having contact with his children.

Secondly, the legal corruption has been the lack of sanction of mothers who breach court orders often costing the father thousands upon thousands and made worse with the Child Support Agency hammering his door down for money when he cannot see them. A state-sanctioned system of hypocrisy leading to the creation of Fathers4Justice and other groups while the mainstream groups such as Families Need Fathers have been working to get the system changed by lobbying.

The one change everyone wanted was an explicit recognition in law of shared parenting, not one based on redisency and non-residency. Not too much to ask.

 This site has commented long and hard about how men had hoped that a new government would ensure there was equality for men and women. Initially there was light with the hope on issues such as anonymity on rape, the lack of anti-male rhetoric and on family law. The government though has danced to the feminist fundamentalist tune and backtracked on everything it promised, been involved in even more male bashing on pay, directorships, pensions and anything else it can lay its hands on.

Yet in the backgorund the flame that still flickered was on family law. That flame has now been snuffed out.

As ever with these things, the government pre-briefed the media so the initial headlines that greeted everyone at the beginning of the week were that grandparents would have a legal right to see their grandchildren  (and Telegraph) and this review would be ground breaking. And then when it was published it was clear when you read it that it was a sham with the grandparents issues a carefully crafted smokescreen that shows no progress for fathers - it is straight out of the spin doctors manual and the dupes in the media fell for it because they are too lazy to do anything except regurgitate the press release.

Basically, there is no real mention of shared parenting at all it says "there should be regard given to the status of shared parental responsibility" - but no presumption! It rules it out (Page 23 - section 108).

The reforms win the backing of lawyers and judges (no surprise) but as the Daily Mail reported - others like Fathers4Justice and the Family Society say it is a sham. Families Need Fathers says it still has a long way to go and organisations such as FNF had made sensible, reaosnable and well thought out submissions. But they were ignored.

It was almost as if the review had been 'got at' by the fundamentalists - that by having shared parenting would mean the value of fathers would be enhanced and that was unacceptable. If the governement enacts these proposals in this 'interim' review then there it will be cleat that the government is as bad as the last.

It gives the hope of equality and justice for men, and then takes it away. That is worse than making clear there is no hope at all.

Posted by Skimmington

Postscript - There are a number of Conservative MP's such as Brian Binley and Charlie Elphicke who are campaigning for shared parenting so we hope they are vocal in their opposition to this. 

Postscript 2 - The sound Brian Hitchcock from the Family Law Society on BBC West Midlands

 

THE DISGRACE THAT BRITISH MEN HAVE TO RELY ON EUROPEAN JUSTICE FOR EQUALITY

One of the many conclusions coming from today's European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgment on making sure insurance is gender-neutral shows that men have to rely on unelected judges in Europe to get equality.The other is the silence from the self-named 'equality' Industry.

While on balance the decision means there will be equality for men in terms of paying for car insurance (there could even be a cut) and there could be a loss in terms of pension annuities, at least gender equality is being applied.

Without getting into the argument about whether the ECJ should be interfering in UK affairs (that and giving prisoners the vote - an ECHR decision - are arguments for other sites) the clearest argument that the doom mongers, the insurers and others have not been able to answer is the fact that insurers cannot discriminate against race so why can they with gender? There is no answer from them.

Also what can be seen from the many comments in the debates at the end of media articles is the growing ferment of anger men have towards the place in modern society as second class citizens. You can read their joy in the comments sections of newspapers and the BBC about the fact that it proves equality applies to them and allows them to cock a snook to the equalities industry that loathes them so much.

It is also a defeat for the anti-male lobby, like this and the last government, the Guardian/BBC, the Fawcett Society, the Equalities Commission and others like them that who believe women should enjoy special privilege, are untouchable and equality can only be on their terms.

This Cake and Eat It Brigade want equality but only so long as women can keep their perks and extra entitlements like cheaper insurance and early retirement.

Coming back to my opening piece - if the judges had made a pro-women judgment then Theresa May (Minister for Women), Lynne Featherstone (Equalities Minister), Harman/Flint, Equalities Commission etc would have been singing from the rooftops. As it is seen as a pro-man judgment, there is complete silence. Such unsurprising hypocrisy.

The second point is that it is shameful that men have to go through to ECJ on Strasbourg to obtain equality.

The only reason men now have free bus passes, winter fuel allowance etc at the same age as a women is because of the ECJ and the work of Parity. The same is the case for the coming equality in state pension age, a discrimination that men will have suffered for 70 years by the time there is equality in 2018. And now we have equality on insurance.

The shameful fact is that in Britain, men can rely only on European judges to fight their corner for equality. All because British politicians are too weak, too anti-male and too afraid of the anti-male special favours feminist lobby.

Posted by Skimmington 

Media coverage - BBC, Conservative Home, FT, Guardian#1, Daily Mail , Guardian#2,

DOUBLE DEFEAT FOR MEN ON RAPE ALLEGATIONS

One the areas that where the police and the Crown Prosecution Service have both been unequivocal has been prosecuting women who falsely accuse men of raping them.

For those falsely accused men it destroys them and families and also damages the cases of women who have been raped. These recent cases (Nicola Osborne and Jemima Knights) show how this remains the case and remember the government's own report (where it infamously u-turned on anonymity for rape defendants) said 8-10% of allegations were false and 61 women were convicted in 2010 for false allegations and 7 prosecutions failed.

Earlier this month the Crown Prosecution Service launched a consultation on false allegations of rape and domestic violence to ensure that women are not prosecuted when they retracted the allegation based on fear (the cause celebre is where a woman had her sentence for a false allegation rightly quashed).

While the press release and consultation make it clear that there is no intention to water down prosecutions for false accusations, you cannot help but feel this is a fig-leaf for more discrimination against men and boys (just like believers in the positive discrimination clauses of the Equality Act always state that it can mean more male primary school teachers).

It has been clear and clearly identified by the brilliant False Rape Society website who have identified the growing trend from the Guardian and organisations like Women Against Rape complaining about false rape prosecutions because they believe there is no such thing as a false allegation and that no women should ever be prosecuted for false rape allegations. Normally based on the doe-eyed naive view that all women-are-good-all-men-are-bad-no-smoke-without-fire world view attitude.

When do you ever hear organisations supporting raped women attack those women for making false accusations which damages the women these organisations rightly support?

The anti-male feminist tactics are clear on the rape issue. In their first victory when the government u-turned on the anonymity issue, they cited the evil rapist Warboys where because he had been named and pictured when accused, more women came forward. This time, they are using this case in the same way where a woman was being wrongly being prosecuted for a false allegation when there were clear reasons which the CPS should have taken into account. Because of their mistake, they let the whole anti-male feminists brigade to use it as an issue to continually beat them up on it.

The victims of this again will be those men and boys falsely accused of rape.

Firstly, there are strong enough rules and also the application of 'common-sense'  and the 'reasonable' test mean that if an allegation is retracted but there are extenuating circumstances like being bullied, then the CPS should be sensible enough not to prosecute. You do not need new rules, just people with brains.

Secondly, by putting pressure on the police and Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute and making it harder to do so, means they will be more reluctant to do so. It is more hassle, the political pressure from on high will mean some cases will now be dropped when they should not be. It is the same when the police automatically arrest the man in domestic abuse cases when both are making accusations (or of course they arrest the man anyway).

Thirdly, there will be less chance of justice for those men and boys who were accused. At least if there name was in the papers, those who had made a false allegations would have their reputations damaged as well and be prosecuted and on occasion jailed. There will be fewer examples of this now.

This will be a further victory for the anti-male feminists on this issue within six months.

First they succeed in stopping men accused of rape from remaining anonymous unless found guilty. Now they have succeeded in making it harder for women who make false allegations to be prosecuted.

The Government says it is consulting but it did so on the anonymity issue and did not take any notice of those wanting anonymity so it won't do now for those groups asking them not to water down existing law and procedures.

Posted by Skimmington

Postscript - The False Rape Society is absolutely brilliant on this subject and please read these posts:

FRS#1, FRS#2, FRS#3

 

ARTICLE UPDATE

Here are a few articles that have not been covered so far but may be of interest.

The Guardian - Welfare Reform Bill will trap women in their violent hell (Lisa Ansell)

The Observer - Review threatens companies with disclosure over number of women they interview (Andrew Clark) plus UK lags behind Nordic nations.

Daily Telegraph - Young women face £1,000 increase in car insurance (David Williams)

The Guardian - Paying the price for equality (Rupert Jones)

Daily Mail - One in three female offenders are thugs (Sarah Harris)

Warminster TImes - £80 fine for false rape claim 

Aberdeen Press and Journal - False rape claim woman faces jail

NPR (USA) - Love doesn't have to hurt (Michel Martin) About an appalling Pepsi Superbowl advert 

BBC Berkshire - Woman cautioned over false rape claim

Daily Mail - Female Chaplain sentenced over false rape claim 

The Independent - Boardroom quotas (Margareta Pagano)

Daily Telegraph - Lady golfers unhappy about law to end sex discrimination (Adam Lusher) 

Posted by Skimmington 

CHILD MAINTENANCE REVIEW OFFERS HOPE ON JUSTICE IN THE FAMILY COURTS

At the turn of the year the site commented on its despair at the actions, in-actions and u-turns of the Coalition Government on equality issues for men. A lot of this is because it has been driven by the Ministers for Equalities and Minister for Women.

The one area where there still remained a flicker of hope was the fact the government remained committed to reviewing family law and the way that family courts and other institutions operated. This is helped by the fact that 'the family' remains a central construct in Conservative ideology (less so for the Lib Dems though John Hemmings MP has been active).

In the Coalition agreement it stated: We will conduct 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.

Whilst that review remains ongoing, they have just launched a separate consultation on the future of child maintenance - a system riddled with anti-father bias and unfairness.

One of the biggest injustices in overall family law system has been the disconnection between child maintenace and access - where a father is denied access to their children despite court orders and agreements but still the CSA and now CMEC continue to demand (with menaces) the maintenance payments. These issues have been dealt with in a silo.

It has meant mothers who flout the law are still rewarded by the CSA/CMEC  - a morally corrupt situation especially made worse by the family courts failing to 'punish' mothers who ignore court orders. Mothers in this situation are gaming the system because policymakers have never made the connection between child maintenance and access.

This has also been enhanced because fathers recognise and worry about the consequences of withhloding payments on their children and recalcitrant mothers play on this as well.

Welcome news has been received today though that this now being looked at in the round as the Family Justice Review team have said:

As part of the [child maintenance green paper], DWP have asked us to look at the extent to which decisions on maintenance or contact should have a bearing on each other – alongside our emerging proposals for whole-system reform.The full proposal is laid out in the Green Paper as follows:

We know that one of the most significant issues for non-resident parents is when contact with their children is denied or withheld. This can lead to tension and hostility between the parents, especially where maintenance is still being collected through the statutory system.

We are keen to explore approaches that allow maintenance arrangements to be considered in the round when determining appropriate contact enforcement measures. We recognise, however, that there are challenges in linking maintenance and contact in this way, most importantly how such decisions might impact on the best interests of the child. We also recognise that it is important that this issue is considered within the context of wider reforms that are currently being progressed elsewhere in government. We have therefore requested that the Family Justice Review consider this issue as part of its wider work in developing options for reform of the Family Justice System.

 I am aware that you may have an opinion on this issue, but might not have addressed it in your evidence to the Review. We plan to set out the issues and invite further views on this in our interim report, to be published at the end of March.

 If, however, you want to pass on any immediate comments on this proposal for our consideration ahead of this, we would be grateful to receive these by Friday 4 February.Please submit any evidence to: [email protected]

This is extremely encouraging news because it means a joined-up government approach and the review on family law is a root and branch review.

Not only does it mean the prospect of shared parenting is on the horizon but also that there may be justice and equality with regards to child maintenance as well.

Let us hope that those mothers who purposely deny their child(ren) the chance to maintain a meaningful relationship with their fathers, despite court agreements, no longer are allowed to sit at home counting the cash he is still forced to send through.

All is asked for is moral and legal justice in a supposedly civilised country.

Posted by Skimmington