Saturday, May 22, 2004

UK: Fathers 4 Justice Stuns Tony Blair in Condom Pelting

From mensnewsdaily.com

Fathers 4 Justice Stuns Tony Blair in Condom Pelting

May 20, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Roger F. Gay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Members of the fathers' rights group Fathers 4 Justice stunned the United Kingdom Wednesday by pelting Tony Blair with condoms filled with colored flour while he spoke at the House of Commons. Fathers 4 Justice fights primarily for greater contact between fathers and children following parents' separations and divorce but holds interest in a broader range of institutionalized injustices against divorced fathers and children. Their attack prompted the immediate suspension of the session and was reported by television and newspaper journalists throughout the world.
The group has previously attracted attention with Batman and Robin on a courthouse rooftop, Spiderman on a crane near the Tower of London, small groups interfering randomly with London traffic, large-scale marches, Santas singing carols into courts, and by holding government workers hostage with toy pistols. The symbolism of each demonstration should be increasingly obvious to those who pay attention.

A major event in the life of the rapidly-growing organization came last year when "serious failings" were recognized in the operation of the Child and Family Advisory and Support Service, an agency set up in 2002 ostensibly "to protect and advise on the rights of children during court proceedings." Following a report, the Lord Chancellor asked the entire board to resign.

The countries of the United Kingdom were among those that followed the United States in reforming family law in recent decades based on the old Soviet model of family policy. The model was introduced in the United States by Irwin Garfinkel, a professor of Social Work at Columbia University and former head of the Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty, with the goals of increasing uniformity in the outcomes of child support cases and making administrative procedures more efficient. His reform proposals followed on the heals of similar recommendations made by a social scientist in Norway.

The heart of the reforms has been a significant shift from the common law practice of dealing with facts and rational choices in individual cases, sometimes allowing parents to decide how to resolve problems on their own, to a system of en masse decisions made at policy level. The goal of the latter type of decision is to hit arbitrary statistical targets that may look good to central planners, something that is rarely accomplished, and for the sake of efficiency to reduce as far as possible concern for individual circumstances.

What should be obvious from the international growth of fathers' rights organizations is that "efficiency" is defined primarily by the elimination of the rights of fathers from the policy equation. The first-hand experience of protesters is that the new system rolls some heavy rocks down their hill while they individually fight what is often already a strenuous up-hill battle to remain involved in the lives of their children.

There is wide agreement in social science literature, and even among many politicians today, that dealing a parent out of a child's life is generally a very bad thing. Lack of a father's involvement has been associated with children's emotional problems that extend into adult life, violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, teen pregnancy, suicide, and poor school performance. It may seem a strange dichotomy that government agencies act systematically against fathers.

Aside from the analysis of family policy issues presented so often at MensNewsDaily.com, the mystery is finally being unraveled in political science literature. In The Politics of Fatherhood, Professor Stephen Baskerville of Howard University presents an analysis showing that those involved in family policy and implementation have a financial stake in having children separated from fathers.

The case may be more easily made in review of the system the United States but must have relevance in every country that followed in making similar family law reforms. The shift away from the exercise of common law principles in deciding family law cases allows centralized decision makers to arbitrarily manipulate outcomes to achieve any objective they have in mind, regardless of the effect on human rights and society. This opens the door to corruption, whether intended or not, and the unavoidable destruction of bureaucratic invasion into personal life that common law principles were designed to repel.

Shortly after the demonstration in the House of Commons, a BBC correspondent answering questions on CNN, explained that whether or not the attention gained by Fathers 4 Justice plays to their benefit depends on the follow-up discussion. The reactions by journalists have been mixed. Some have reported on Fathers 4 Justice and their issues. Others have focused on the security problem in the House of Commons. The demonstrators were allowed into a special unprotected gallery at the invitation of a member of the House of Lords. Had Lady Golding invited foreign terrorists into the gallery instead of fathers, the purple powder might have been something other than flour, and something really bad might have happened.

There are occasional flippant commentaries. A portion of an opinion by Barry Collins published in Wednesday's edition of the Mail Online entitled "These fathers are an affront to justice" reads; "No one is listening to their entirely reasonable case for equal access to children for fathers. Instead they roll their eyes and wonder how such a worthwhile cause is being hijacked by a bunch of publicity-seeking primadonnas." Never mind?

Being an American, the product of a culture that is separated from England by an ocean and a common language, I have to ask respectfully about an article that attacks people who have "a perfectly reasonable case" and characterizes the battle for "a worthwhile cause" as a hijacking "by a bunch of publicity-seeking primadonnas." Is that what the Brits call irony?

That they have a reasonable case is undeniable, even by the most fanatic opponents of fathers' rights. It seems to me that any intelligent, objective observer would find it completely obvious that ignoring the problem is exactly what led to the Fathers 4 Justice demonstrations. So obvious in fact, that such a view could accidentally appear even in opposition to the group's activities. That's what led to the creation of the group in the first place. If what Fathers 4 Justice has done so far does not focus attention on family policy in the right way, what will?

If you plan to wait until the whole thing blows over, becomes yesterday's news, for real fathers to wise up and conclude that the Prime Minister's question time or London traffic is more important than their children, for the men to turn away because the task is hard, I suspect you'll be waiting a very long time. These men are not for turning.


Roger F. Gay


DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE FORUM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger F. Gay is a professional analyst, international correspondent and regular contributor to MensNewsDaily.com, as well as a contributing editor for Fathering Magazine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
END

Friday, May 21, 2004

Fwd: Fathers' Rights Powder Attack on Tony Blair plus His Side promo


Glennjsacks@cs.com wrote:
Fathers' Rights Powder Attack on Tony Blair plus His Side promo

As many of you know, yesterday an English father who has not been able to see his daughter in five years hit British Prime Minister Tony Blair with a packet of purple flour as Blair answered questions on the floor of the House of Commons. In something of a panic, the parliamentary session was quickly suspended. The father and his coconspirator are part of a nonviolent resistance campaign launched by the English fathers' rights group Fathers 4 Justice. The group uses purple because purple is the international color of equality.

I have been contacted by some news media and by many listeners and readers as to my opinion of F4J's action. I know that some in the mainstream media and even in the fathers' movement (such as MensNewsDaily) have condemned the attack. I support the action against Tony Blair and, as long as Fathers 4 Justice continues to protest in a nonviolent manner, I will continue to support them.

I will have an opinion column on yesterday's F4J action out in the coming days. For more information, see Dads army' steps up fight for rights (BBC, 5/19/04). Also, see my column In Defense of Spiderman (Cybercast News Service, 11/11/03) and listen to the His Side shows
Nonviolent Resistance by British 'Dads Army' Making UK Ungovernable (2/15/04) and Leader of British 'Dads Army' Discusses Group's Rapid Rise, Upcoming Plans on His Side (6/22/04).

The promo for this week's His Side--"Why Girls Need Fathers"--is below. For those who are outside of our radio station's coverage range, you can listen to the show live via our station's excellent Internet stream at Listen Live. I invite you to call the show and join the discussion in progress at 1-800-770-1540.

To listen to the archive of last Sunday's contentious His Side--"Gloria Allred vs. LaMusga's Attorney on Move-aways"--click here and scroll down to "Listen to the Show."

My latest opinion column, "It's Child Support Guidelines that Need Surgery, Not 'Deadbeat Dads' (Cincinnati Post, Kentucky Post, 5/12/04) (co-authored by family law attorney Jeff Leving) concerns a Kentucky judge's now famous "vasectomy or jail" edict for so-called "deadbeat dads." To comment on the piece, send letters to postedits@cincypost.com and kyedits@cincypost.com. The column was picked up by Cybercast News Service--if you are interested in commenting on the column to them, write to letters@cnsnews.com.

I discussed the controversy on several radio shows this week, including the Joe Elliot Show on WHAS AM 84 in Louisville, KY, the Sue Wiley Show on WVLK AM 590 in Lexington, KY, the Al Rantel Show on KABC AM 790 in Los Angeles and the Stacy Taylor Show on KOGO AM 600 in San Diego. I invited Judge Michael ("vasectomy or jail") Foellger to debate the issue on my show but he declined.

One of the reasons His Side has survived and thrived is the advertising support we've received from The Job Coach. Being unemployed, underemployed or unhappily employed is very difficult--if you're looking for help or to make a change, contact The Job Coach at 619-465-9476 or info@thejobcoach.com. Ask for the "His Side Special" and tell them I sent you.

The National Coalition of Free Men is putting together a National Men's Rights Congress in Washington, DC on June 18-19. I support NCFM's good work--for more info on their conference, click here.

To help support His Side with Glenn Sacks, click here
. To get CDs of all previous and future shows, go to the His Side Store. To support the advertisers who support the show, go to His Side Advertisers. To advertise on the show, go to Advertise@HisSide.com.

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
Listen to His Side with Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com

PS To be removed from this e-list, go to webmaster@hisside.com.


Why Girls Need Fathers




Of all the bonds between family members, those between fathers and daughters are sometimes the closest but are often also the most tenuous. And while many do acknowledge the importance of a father in a boy's life, the huge impact a father has on his daughter is less publicized and more elusive.

Many daughters crave a better relationship with their fathers but are unsure how to approach their dads. Many fathers desire closer bonds with their daughters but are similarly perplexed. Since 1990 Dr. Linda Nielsen of Wake Forest University has taught the only university course in the country that focuses exclusively on father-daughter relationships.

Nielsen, a professor of Adolescent Psychology &Women's Studies, is the author of the new book "Embracing Your Father: How to Build the Relationship You Always Wanted with Your Dad ." While there are many books about mother-daughter relationships, Nielsen's is the only one written for daughters about specific ways to strengthen their relationships with their fathers.


Dr. Stephen Johnson, founder of the Men's Center Los Angeles, often works with fathers seeking to build or rebuild their bonds with their daughters.

Linda and Stephen will join Glenn on His Side with Glenn Sacks on Sunday, May 23, at 9 PM PST. To listen to the show--"Why Girls Need Fathers"--click here and scroll down to "Listen to the Show."

To learn more about fathers and daughters, see Linda Nielsen's "Demeaning, Demoralizing &Disenfranchising Divorced Dads (Journal of Divorce & Remarriage
), Fathers &Daughters--Why a Course for College Students? (College Student Journal) and Excerpts from Embracing Your Father.

Also, see an ancient Glenn Sacks article, Father Care: The Other Child Care Option (W. New York Family Magazine, 6/01).

His Side with Glenn Sacks can be heard on KMPC AM 1540 in Los Angeles at 9 PM PST and on KKOL AM 1300 in Seattle at 11 PM every Sunday evening. To listen live via the Internet from anywhere in the world, go to Listen Live. Both radio and Internet listeners are encouraged to call and participate in the show live and on the air at 1-800-770-1540. All callers will be mailed a free CD of the show in which they appeared at their request.

To help support His Side with Glenn Sacks, click here
. To get CDs of all previous and future shows, go to the His Side Store. To support the advertisers who support the show, go to His Side Advertisers. To advertise on the show, go to Advertise@HisSide.com.



www.HisSide.com








Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year

UK: Mothers for justice: women say militant fathers are creating a climate of fear

UK: Mothers for justice: women say militant fathers are creating a climate of fear
News

Mothers for justice: women say militant fathers are creating a climate of fear
By Maxine Frith, Social Affairs Correspondent

21 May 2004


They see themselves as modern-day suffragettes, engaging in high-profile peaceful protests to raise public awareness of their battle for equality with the opposite sex.

And in throwing a flour-filled condom at the Prime Minister, the Fathers4Justice campaign has once again propelled the issue of custody rights to the front pages and re-ignited the debate over how the courts deal with family break-ups.

Since the group was formed 18 months ago, it claims its ranks have now swollen to more than 6,000 men, driven to direct action by frustration with the family court system and desper- ation to see their children.

But lawyers, women's groups and even other fathers' rights organisations were offering a rather different perspective yesterday. They said Fathers4Justice was doing little to help its own cause and had created a climate of fear and intimidation around what is already a highly charged topic.

Solicitors representing women whose ex-partners are members of Fathers4Justice claim they have been sent abusive e-mails, had their offices vandalised and stormed by protesters and have even been targeted at home.

Women say that while their estranged partners can stage rooftop protests and make allegations about their circumstances, they as mothers cannot publicly counter the accusations because it will push their children into the public arena.

In an even more sinister development, scores of family law solicitors specialising in children's issues were sent hoax letter bombs last autumn. Similar hoaxes - made of marzipan with wires attached to it - were also sent to offices of the Child and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass), which deals with custody issues.

Fathers4Justice has denied any involvement and says it only engages in non-violent protests.

Alain Williams, a member of the group, said: "We see ourselves as very similar to the suffragette movement and we use similar techniques to try to change the system.

"We feel we are like second-class citizens who do not have the same rights as women when it comes to the courts.

"They are encouraged to make false allegations against men in order to win custody and everyone believes them."

Mr Williams is a case in point of the acrimony and allegations which swirl around many cases of marital break-up in which children are involved.

He claims his former partner accused him of abusing his children, told neighbours that he was dangerous and refused to comply with access orders as they fought over custody rights.

"I get to see my kids now but it was an absolute nightmare," he says. "I know of solicitors who tell women to make up allegations of domestic violence in order to win custody. It is the legal system which is to blame here. The only winners in the current system are the lawyers."

Fathers4Justice has two other big hates - Cafcass and the Solicitors Family Law Association (SFLA). The group says Cafcass is chaotic, under-resourced and staffed by inexperienced workers who fail to take into account the rights of fathers to see their children.

It reserves particular vitriol for the SFLA, even dedicating an entire section of its website to the organisation and its members.

According to Fathers4Justice, "malicious and patently suspect allegations against fathers routinely emanate from the offices of SFLA members on behalf of their clients."

The group has routinely targeted the offices of lawyers who represent women in custody cases, and proudly promotes its protests on the website.

Earlier this year, the offices of the Parker Bird law firm in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, was daubed with graffiti saying "child thieves".

The premises were then stormed by 15 Fathers4Justice protesters who handed Karen Woodhead, the head of family law, a golden petrol can.

The group claims that the can represented the firm's "contribution in pouring petrol on the flames in divorce and childcare cases."

Parker Bird would not comment on the case but the SFLA say this is blatant intimidation.

Last summer, David Burrows, who was the SFLA's chair-man, was targeted at his home on a Sunday afternoon by Fathers4Justice protesters wearing chemical warfare suits and dark glasses. They leafleted his street warning neighbours that Mr Burrows "could pose a serious health hazard to your relationship with your children."

Kim Beatson, who now chairs the SFLA, said: "Fathers4Justice claim they are non-violent but I think they are becoming increasingly militant and we have heard of several other cases of solicitors receiving abusive e-mails, having their offices vandalised or their buildings stormed." She added: "We are totally committed to the idea of collaborative parenting for mothers and fathers and in the vast majority of cases that is what happens, without people ever having to go to court."

"I am also worried that the way Fathers4Justice portrays the court system may even put men off trying to get access to their children because it destroys all their hope."

Many lawyers and women's groups are now reluctant to speak out on the issue for fear of being targeted by the militant protesters.

One director of a woman's group said: "I think a lot of people would like to put the other side of the story but they are too scared to because they simply don't have the time or the energy to deal with being victimised by these groups.

"One mother said to me that she didn't have time to climb a crane and wave a banner as she was too busy being the primary carer to her children."

Observers are also concerned that more extreme groups may try to infiltrate and influence organisations such as Fathers4Justice.

The British National Party website contains an article urging its readers to support a Fathers4Justice march this August and claiming there is an "anti-male, feminist inspired bias against fathers following divorce".

There is no suggestion that Fathers4Justice is in any way linked to the BNP, but the fact that the party has latched on to the campaign may give cause for concern.

Even other fathers' groups are keen to distance themselves from the militancy of the group. Ian Mackay, of Families Need Fathers, said: "We don't condone or support their behaviour. I don't think it is very responsible and I am not sure it is really advancing their cause."

END

NZ : Marriage: an enduring institution

NZ : Marriage: an enduring institution

From http://www.maxim.org.nz/discuss/thread.php?topic=111.1

Subject: Marriage: an enduring institution

There's some good news on the marriage front. Statistics NZ says last year saw the greatest number of marriages since 1991 -- 21,420. That was 3.5 percent more than the previous year. The marriage rate has stayed stable for several years now, at 14 out of every 1,000 eligible not-marrieds. The figure is inflated somewhat, though, because more than one in three marriages are between people who have been married before.
While it's a positive indicator of the enduring preference for marriage (according to the 2001 Census, for every 100 people in a relationship, 80 were married), we have still fallen a long way since the peak in 1971, when 45 out of every 1,000 married.

Balanced against this are some sobering figures which show that between June 2001 and June 2003, sole-parent families with dependent children outgrew two-parent families, not only in percentage terms but in absolute numbers.

Lindsay Mitchell, a petitioner for a review of the DPB, says that according to the New Zealand Income Survey, produced by Statistics NZ, single-parent families grew by 12,600 or nine percent. Two-parent families grew by only 11,000 or three percent. "This trend is very bad news," says Mitchell. "When marriages fail or parents reject each other it is a cost to all of society. Children from one-parent families are more likely to live in poverty or be on welfare. They are more likely to exhibit negative outcomes."

END