Ill Eagle
Ill Eagle 13 Ill Eagle
13 .. Feb 2001 .... ISSN 1466-9005 Ill13 p1 Ill Eagle for MPs Many thanks to Jerome Davis for
supplying Ill Eagle to MPs – Ed Double Squirt Letter in Ireland on
Sunday, sep00, by Michael Stephens, Pineview Grove, Aylesbury, Tallaght In the early part of this century, an
Alabama industrialist, David Edelman, forecast that increased mechanisation
of agriculture would result in "negroes becoming obsolete". He,
therefore, proposed that measures be taken to reduce or eliminate the negro
population in the USA as society (ie white people) would have no further use
for them. His inhuman comments were, quite rightly, condemned by many public figures
even in those "unenlightened" times. If anyone, in our modern, liberal, new
Ireland suggested that one section of humanity is now obsolete or redundant
because the rest of the human race can survive without them, one would expect
that such a sentiment would be utterly condemned by all right-minded people.
No doubt, if the group declared obsolete or redundant were black people,
itinerants, gay people or, most especially, women, the cries of condemnation
would be deafening. Yet, popular psychiatrist Dr Anthony
Clare, in his recent book, declares men to be redundant and no one raises an
eyebrow. His book, entitled Masculinity in Crisis, does nothing more than
repeat the same old anti-man rhetoric that we have been hearing for the past
20 years from misandrist feminists and their sycophants. Men are portrayed in this book as
inherently violent, totally confused and unable to come to terms with the
rapid changes in society. All men's problems and all women's problems are
caused by men and the mythical "patriarchy". In essence, Dr Clare
sees men as flawed versions of human perfection, ie, women. In his myopic analysis of society, Dr
Clare ignores the fact that men are, and always have been, the architects of
virtually all social progress. The overall contribution of women to the
evolution of civilisation is miniscule in comparison. If he looked around at the reality of
men's lives in the 21st century, he would see that the vast majority of men
are totally at ease with their place in society and, as in the past, making
valuable contributions in every walk of life, including the nurturing of
children. It is true that some men are finding
life difficult as evidenced by the suicide statistics. But if commentators
like Dr Clare wish to make an intelligent contribution to a debate on men's
place in society, I would suggest that they first free themselves from the
constraint of having to tailor their utterances to the demands of the great
tyranny of our times, ie feminism. [I first met Stephens at Amen in Eire in
sep00. His letter exactly matches my comments on The Squirt in Ill Eagle
aug00, p1- Ed.] Out for the Count -
Andrew Stephen, Sunday Times Magazine,
14jan01, p37/43 -
.... Al Gore .... needed to employ a
$15,000-a-month feminist, Naomi Wolf, to tell him how to behave like a man.
.... the ludicrous "earth tone" clothes Wolf had told him to wear
.... Stealth Tax on Marriage -
Paul Eastham, Daily Mail, 22jan01, p1 -
Gordon Brown was accused last night of
undermining the traditional family through a new payment to parents. .... millions
of single parents and unmarried couples will benefit while two-parent homes
will miss out. .... British men stay single longer to play the field -
Ben Summerskill, Observer, 21jan01, p6 .... '.... Large numbers of people in their twenties and thirties
have witnessed their parents' relationships break up. That can put them off.'
.... Almost 30% of households in Britain now consist of a single person
living alone, up from below 10% in 1960.... Let's hear it for divorce - Carol
Sarler, Observer, 21jan01, p31 .... Lord Chancellor finally bowed to
the inevitable and abandoned the 'no fault' divorce reforms, which had been
beating at the heart of the Family Law Act 1996. Too expensive, he said. ....
.... as with my lunching friend -
divorce might be the bravest, most liberating, exhilarating thing that
someone has ever done, for themselves and their families, and they should be
congratulated. A high divorce rate, in all probability,
signifies more happy people, not fewer. .... Nine times out of 10, those who
purse the pious lip are privately miserable but, in the absence of courage to
end domestic torment, they don't see why anybody else should get out
either. Acquittals by juries reach record levels - Tom
Robbins, Sunday Times, 28jan01, p3 Juries are acquitting more defendants
than at any time in the past 25 years - a trend that police fear is
undermining the war on crime. .... Dr Gary Slapper .... Open
University .... shows that while acquittal rates remained static at about 32%
from the mid-1970s to the end of the 1980s, they shot up during the 1990s. In 1999, 43% of all jury verdicts were
"not guilty", the highest % since the start of the survey. "The public is so much more critical
and socially and politically aware than it was in the 1950s or 1850s and so
juries are more likely to think for themselves," said Slapper.
"They are less prone to be reverential towards police officers, because
it is more common knowledge in 2001 than it was in 1950 that police officers
are capable of lying, that lawyers are capable of covering up evidence, and
that judges can be less than wholesome characters." .... Jack Straw, the home secretary, is
determined to limit the right to trial by jury .... As well as distrusting police evidence,
juries are tending to disregard legal advice offered by the judge and
returning "perverse" verdicts based on their own views. .... "The govt argues against juries on
the basis that they are too expensive and slow, but the bottom line is that
they object to the fact that juries come back with verdicts that they do not
like," said Michael Mansfield, QC. .... Comment. A week before, in Sunday Times 21jan01,
p17, Melanie Phillips had a perceptive analysis of the role of the jury. As
the Clive Ponting trial showed, it is not there just to decide on guilt. The
jury refused to convict, although they knew Ponting was guilty of breaking
the Official Secrets Act when he exposed the deception by our govt over the
Belgrano sinking. The jury knew there was a more important Ill13 p2 issue at stake; honest government. RG
and I myself believe that when a husband divorces, he is thereby
criminalised; driven outside any legal framework, much as happened in the
Middle Ages to a man who was excommunicated, or to a helot in Roman times.
Thus, it is important that when a divorced man is forced to resort to
extra-legal means to defend himself against illegal attack sanctioned by
judges, he knows that in the last resort he can appeal to a jury, who with
him will ignore the law in order to fend off our oppressive, anti-social
Family Court System (allied with the Criminal Courts). ".... the facts
seemed clear. But the juries chose to return not-guilty verdicts, probably in
protest against the official secrets law ...." - MP. As more and more information about our
illegal, secret Family Courts breaks through the censorship, juries will
begin to know enough to refuse to convict fathers who have been targeted by
the courts. - Ed The Century Gap - Harriet
Harman, pub. Vermilion 1993 [Men are
one century out of date.] [pvii] Over the past twenty years
Patricia Hewitt, Anna Coote and I have developed our ideas together. [All are
now close to Vanity Blair.] [p57] The National Council of Women of Great
Britain reports that .... Just 13 % of women of child-bearing age think that
a woman needs a child to be fulfilled - only 25% of mothers actually think
this. .... Julie Burchill noted..... "some of us will end up at forty
with a cat and .... dinner for one. But more will be happy and more women
will be fulfilled than ever before .... BECAUSE IT WAS OUR CHOICE!" [p58] What must men do to narrow the
century gap in marriage? .... They must begin to take more seriously what
goes on within their homes and accept that becoming a husband and becoming a
father .... will change their lives in fundamental ways. .... they must
dramatically increase the time they spend on household chores and childcare;
and they must exercise within their homes the rules of common courtesy and
respect which they practise at work. [Shape up, you uncouth men! - Ed] Changing our Minds: Lesbian Feminism and Psychology - Celia
Kitzinger and Rachel Perkins pub.
Onlywomen Press, 1993 [p60] The word "homophobia" defines
fear of lesbians as irrational. There are, according to the psychological
definitions of "homophobia", no rational, sensible reasons for
fearing lesbianism. This is completely at odds with radical lesbian politics.
We cannot think of lesbianism as a challenge to heteropatriarchal structures
and values, and simultaneously claim there are no reasonable grounds for men
(and heterosexually-identified women) to fear us. We cannot write, as
Adrienne Rich (1980) has done, that "a militant and pluralistic feminist
movement is potentially the greatest force in the world for a complete
transformation of society", and simultaneously claim that fear of
lesbianism is irrational. [Authors are UK university lecturer and
Consultant Clinical Psychologist. One attempted suicide. The other had a
serious depressive illness. See p75; "A national survey in the United
States found that three out of every four lesbians had been in therapy at
some point..."] Failing to deliver on marriage Editorial,
Daily Mail, 22jan01, p12 .... disappointing indeed for those
still prepared to believe the Prime Minister's assurances that he is an
enthusiastic supporter of marriage and the family. Last week it emerged that Mr Blair is
thinking of abandoning a policy document on the family after a revolt by an
alliance of divorced Ministers who objected to any official stance
proclaiming that 'marriage is best'. Now comes news that the Children's Tax
Credit - Chancellor Gordon Brown's replacement for the married Couples
Allowance - will leave many couples worse off. .... [it] will go to five
million people, .... whereas the Married Couples Allowance .... went to ten
million couples. Most disturbing .... help is being
switched from married couples to co-habitees with children, and single
parents. Resignation Protest at Ill Eagle 15 January 2001 To: Stephen Fitzgerald National
Organiser, ManKind My renewal of ManKind having come up I
feel I must write. I joined, as did my wife, because we
feel that the feminist movement is fast becoming a source of injustice and
grave social damage. There are so many aspects to this - the preoccupation of
the media and particularly TV advertising with making men look stupid and
women look dominant; the loading of divorce settlements against men; the
politically corrective over-promotion of women (often a series of women) into
jobs for which their talents are insufficient (from Laura Ashley to the CSA);
the feminisation of primary schools, and so on. All this has coincided with a
profound change in employment opportunities affecting men more than women,
the projection of laddishness by television, and so on. The result of this and many other
changes and developments is a loss of identity and role models for young men
to acquire the male virtues and male strengths protectiveness, fortitude,
resourcefulness, sense of duty in the face of threats, a wish to earn and
provide. And so on. Girls can have these also, just as men can be caring and
instinctual and so on. But they are central and essential to being a
worthwhile man and increasingly they cannot be learnt by boys who are in
broken homes, and without decent education and without the apprenticeships
where they will mix and learn from men who value work and skills. The further result is enormous social
and economic cost - for example in child support; disorder, crime and
policing; the disintegration of the family - in a circle of effect and cause.
For example men are increasingly unwilling or unable to play the part of
father, simply because as kids they did not know one. You will know all this better than I do.
Having unloaded these thoughts I will come to the point. I see no prospect of
reversing all that has gone too far, or even halting the trends, until they
are better understood by the balanced and fair-minded, of both sexes. When I joined I wrote that I was
impressed with the Charter, which seemed as balanced and fair-minded as it
needed to be. In contrast I am appalled by Ill Eagle. I would be ashamed to
show it to my friends, in order to enlist their interest and support. I would
also expect this to be counter-productive. I have no idea who are responsible for
preparing this publication, and hardly know where to begin. The punning title
is obscure and childish. I find that the tone often seems obsessed,
sarcastic, bitter, and even ranting. There is no touch of humour where this
would help to make a point. I have to guess that the tone is the result of
personal experiences, such as outrageous behaviour by women, and injustice by
the system as a whole. No doubt I would be bitter and obsessed in such
circumstances. Be that as it may, it is not such as to convince the
fair-minded and balanced people on whom reform must depend. As to the technical aspects of layout
and style, the text is too crammed and monotonous. There is no excuse for
literals in the age of the PC spell-checker. The over-use of ellipsis arouses
suspicion. It is far from clear, in places, as to what is reportage or
quotation, what is authored and what is editorial. Overall, I am afraid, it
seems amateur. This should not matter, but it does to people who expect
professionalism. It gives me no pleasure, as a member, to
say all this. But the cause is more important than any of us. A journal or
newsletter happens to be the best way to attract interest from a friend or
contact, because it is more indirect and a softer sell than a formal tract
and donation form. As a top priority you need one that is not an
embarrassment, and has a good chance of enlisting interest, top-class
contributions, and support. We have decided not to renew our
membership, and I have to leave it there. Yours sincerely Dr. David Brancher [Brancher asked that his address and
tel. no. be withheld. - Ed] Ill13 p3 Editorial Len Miskulin Recently, after the Daily Mail had
published on his case on 28dec00, the courts had the effrontery to gag any
information on Len Miskulin, who is on hunger strike because the courts stole
his home and his children; .
http://members.brabant.chello.ul/g.tenbroek/hunger http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~g.tenbroek/hunger/ I note that the court gagging order says
that if you breach it, the court will not only jail you, but will also steal
your property! Many thanks to Jerome David, who has supplied Ill Eagle to MPs.
Please would MPs, reading this, appreciate that this is a predatorial, venal,
anti-social Star Chamber (presided over by Sloss) which is completely out of
control, and getting more menacing all the time. They must rein it in as a
matter of urgency. In its death throes, our family court system becomes ever
more secretive, vicious and anti-social. Curiously, since Miskulin has now lost
his appetite, as one does when on hunger strike, we could happily eat dinner
in front of him! I told Len that I did not approve of his
hunger strike. I thought that it was premature. There would have to be many
deaths, but they would occur well into the future. In particular, the 60 CSA
suicides and the Miskulin hunger strike are misplaced. Nothing will happen
until young men bite the bullet. They will stop proving that they are not
violent, and begin to attack a society which attacks them. This
counter-attack is some way into the future, with fathers still passively
accepting their fate at present. See picture. Campion update I kept to the advice to young men published
by John Campion some six years ago; "Don't marry, cohabit or father
children." The reason is that today, when a young man does so, he
becomes a helot, losing many of his fundamental civil rights - the right to
retain income resulting from his work; the right to own property; the right
to have an influence on the upbringing of his children; the right of access
to his children. The persistent, illegal misconduct of Court Welfare Officers
and judges in Sloss's secret, gagged Family Courts is leaking out to more and
more vulnerable young men, and both the marriage rate and the birthrate have
collapsed. The very recent next step in my thinking
demonstrates how much we need research and deep thinking about the developing
deep crisis. I modify Campion's advice as follows. The present rapidly deepening crisis
will be resolved within the next twenty years. Thus, in twenty years from
now, a man will again be able to marry and bring up a family in the normal
way, as used to be possible for my generation of young men in the 1960s.
Thus, the modified advice which we should give to young men is, not to marry,
cohabit or father children until twenty years from now, in around 2020. I have found that when a well-meaning
but indifferent woman ("It's only a backlash against the oppression of
women throughout the centuries;") hears my modified advice, her reaction
is electrifying. This acceptance that when dealing with
the depredations of radfems and their agents, we are dealing in raw power
(which they call "empowerment", "a woman taking control of her
sexuality"), nothing to do with justice or the law, should be added to
another assertion of power by fathers, called Retreat, see http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/retreat01.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/retreat01.htm http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/README.htm Briefly, a father in the divorce courts
tells the judge that unless the court order is as he requires, then he will
never work again on the white economy, and neither he nor any of his
relatives will ever communicate with or finance his children again. In spite
of its spectacular success in the case of EH, who as a result retains his
home and his children, no other man has been willing to adopt the Retreat
strategy, preferring to ape feminists in victimhood. EH says it is time to move ahead from
Protest to Resistance. The 20 year delay and Retreat are examples of that
move towards a more mature movement. The Donkey and the Carrot From: mailbcf <mailbcf@yahoo.com> To: fnf-chat <fnf-chat@mono.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:01
PM Subject: fnf-chat recent postings [The eldest [ManKind] Oyster looked at him, But never a word he said: The eldest Oyster winked his eye, And shook his heavy head - Meaning to say he did not choose To leave the oyster-bed.] "Many fathers go to quite
extraordinary lengths for their children's sakes and never give up. There are
men who belong to this organisation [FNF] who spend half their lives either
in court or preparing to go to court, men who cross oceans for a few hours
with their children and men who endure abuse and humiliation from their
former partners and come back for more just for the love of their children.
John Baker's account of his treatment on his first visit to his children in
France must be familiar to many of us." - Barry Fry [But four young [FNF] Oysters hurried up All eager for a treat: Their coats were brushed, their faces washed, Their shoes were clean and neat -] .... 'The time has come,' the Walrus said, 'To talk of many things: Of shoes - and ships - and sealing wax - Of cabbages - and kings - And why the sea is boiling hot - And whether pigs have wings.'] My editorial "The Donkey and the
Carrot", Ill Eagle oct00
p3, is about these men, who feed all the money they can into the Divorce
Industry, to keep it going, and to build up the self-esteem of defiant
mothers. Why do they think they have the right to drive those with other
viewpoints out of FNF? Because they are too ignorant, stupid, bigoted or
prejudiced to sustain a strategy discussion, and so have blocked it within
FNF. Of course, Baker and Fry will not be able to read my editorial, because
FNF refuses to cooperate with other organisations and individuals, for
instance by exchanging bulletins and journals. (The editor of Mackenzie has never
replied to me or to our Chairman.) I am not saying that my strategy Retreat http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/retreat01.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/retreat01.htm http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/README.htm is necessarily correct. I am only saying
that to block strategy discussions for 25 years within FNF is disgraceful and
destructive, and has wrought enormous damage on our children. Divergent views are welcomed in ManKind.
My impression is that a ManKind member would get away with anything except
stealing our funds or our name. Take me, for instance. Still here, although
nobody ever loved me. Ivor
Catt, Editor, Ill Eagle. ManKind and Ill Eagle can be reached at; (1). ManKind, Suite, 2 Lansdowne Row,
London W1X 8HL. 0207 413 9176 (2)
www.mankind.org.uk www.ukmm.org.uk (3) The Editor, Ill Eagle, Ivor Catt, 121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR,
England. 01727 864257 (4) Email :- ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk Below is a quote from Stephen Baskerville, Head of
Political Science, Howard University, Washington, DC 20059; The British press and public have been
silenced by a gag order prohibiting spreading (not just publishing) any
information about Len Miskulin's
hunger strike. The ex parte order also includes a "penal order". We
could do a great service by spreading information from abroad. One does not
have to agree with the hunger strike in order to recognise that this is a
major threat to freedom. "An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere" (M.L. King)." 24jan01 atten. Hague MP, Widdicombe MP,
Charles Kennedy MP .... As you can see from .... below, Len
Miskulin has support from Canada .... Australia, Holland, Switzerland, USA, Croatia [etc]....
The British courts may have served a gagging order upon Mr.
Miskulin, but they cannot gag the world. The gagging order is also a human
rights abuse of Mr. Miskulin's 'freedom of expression'. Sadly, it has come to the stage where
fathers no longer respect a court that does not respects their rights to be a
father and they now demonstrate outside the homes of judges. This is
happening outside Butler-Sloss's home - the head of the Family Court
Division. .... -
Dave Ellison ellis@elim.u-net.com Ill13 p4 Male Domestic Violence Victims 2001 A request for volunteers A survey of male victims of domestic
violence by female partners is being conducted by Dewar Research with the
help of Dr M. George of London University. Men who have experienced violence from a
female partner during the last five years are invited to write or contact
Dewar Research at 'Constables', Windsor Road, Ascot, SL5 7LF, or tel/fax
01344 621167; or email Dr. George at
m.j.george@qmw.ac.uk giving their name, postal address, telephone number or
email address. No expenses will be incurred by
volunteers, and confidentiality is guaranteed. Double Standards Prior to Xmas, I decided to take my
extended family on a wonderful trip to the Land of Oz. However, I needed to
acquire passports for a) my 8 year old daughter from my first marriage, and
b) my youngest son, 10 months old. Applications had to be in person, as we
were due to travel within a few days. So there were both myself and my
current partner camping out at the wonderful offices in Petty France; me in
one long queue to submit forms and obtain my 8 y.o. daughter's passport (from
previous marriage), whilst my partner stood in another queue next to me in
order to obtain my youngest son's passport. I submitted the relevant forms, and was
curtailed by the officious official, who religiously informed me that I
needed my daughter's mother's (i.e. my ex-wife's) written permission in order
to obtain said passport. When I questioned this blatant sexism
sexist bureaucracy, I was slapped down with a retort that this was not
sexist, as it was the passport office's policy to obtain authority from both
parents in order to pre-empt any possible child abductions. Of course, my partner in the next queue
safely acquired our son's passport without my permission. - The usual state sponsored
sexist bullshit. Terence Bates terence@oneworld.freeserve.co.uk 0207 226 1799 Mankind Helpline Male victims of Domestic Violence telephone 01775- 840501 for free, immediate and confidential advice. The Oppression of Centuries? In his lecture to our ManKind 28oct00
conference The Age of Violent Young Men
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/conf/generalinfo.htm ,
Dr. Malcolm George showed us a mediaeval picture of a woman beating her husband. It was a crime to be beaten by your wife. If a man was beaten by
his wife, he would then be punished by society. Yesterday, I telephoned Malcolm for the
following reason. You will enjoy what I did. I went again to the British
Library, the £500,000,000 overspend scandal next to St. Pancras Station,
London. Forward left from the Enquiry Desk, enter the room where ancient
manuscripts and books are beautifully presented. Go through, into the room
called "Turning the pages". Of the six books on the monitors,
choose The Luttrell Psalter, and go to Psalm 31. Top right, you will see a
wife beating her husband. Malcolm tells me that scholars assure
him that there are many instances of such events. While in the British Library, a member
of the staff pointed out to me that the £700,000,000 Dome scam made the
British Library less of a scandal. When an American friend got me to take her
round the Dome, I was deeply humiliated. It was much worse than I could have
imagined. It was such an obvious scam. Obviously, less than £100,000,000 was
in evidence, and we were all held in such contempt that the racketeers
assumed we would not be able to see this. Where did the money go?- Ed Liberal Fascism - Charles
Hanson, 13nov00 To isolate radical feminism as the main
component in the breakdown of family life is tending to overlook all the
other areas which contribute far more. The thrust of the feminist agenda has
at its roots that which gives it its legitimacy - social democracy, the
liberal society, that which is or is not politically correct. In subscribing
to the notion of equality for all, I find it remarkable that there exist so
many people whose only aspiration is to be equal to someone else, but this
then is the language of the P.C. Brigade. The Stalinist Secret Police is
everywhere, telling us all how to live, love and work. The self-styled
experts - social workers, probation officers, outreach workers - supported by
an army of psychologists, politically laden counsellors and advisors will
pigeon-hole us all according to our stance, and then in come the ists and
isms; racist, sexist, racism, sexism, homophobic, chauvinist fascist,
supported by the self-assumed experts' arrogance in deploying language unique
to them - psychobabble sociospeak - the tools of the Thought Police. Their
interpretations count - the black one legged lesbian Outreach Worker is a
force to be reckoned with. Simple explanations are always attractive to those
leading empty, meaningless lives. More often than not, it is just
interpretation. Take the case of the social worker who
attacked Marks and Spencer for selling satin knickers to a young girl on the
grounds that it would encourage perverts. It takes a special kind of sick
mind to make that sordid link. The radfem sickness is but one element
of the chaotic, free-for-ell, anything goes society. Long gone are the days
when family conflicts, the normal everyday life events and adversities, were
dealt with by the family and extended family and neighbours. Now there's a
rush for everyone to rush in, everyone wants to be the expert. Quite often,
these sad and sorry individuals will expose themselves on T.V. for all the
world to see, humiliating themselves and their loved ones in the process.
Victims are manufactured, and everyone is left with a sense of vulnerability.
This is the legacy of liberalism; the rise of a chaotic society, and with it,
disorder, uncertainty and chaos.
Ivor Catt's "The Coming of Fascism" [see http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/zb038.htm
] centres on the anti-radical feminist agenda. I believe that
history has a habit of repeating itself. We are already seeing the move to
the right in Europe, which has little to do with the arguments against
radical feminism, but more to do with the chaos of liberalism and a yearning
for a return to the old order - what will become the New Order - ably
directed by strong leadership. While youth culture goes through changes
and fashions, one element of youth culture has been growing in recent years -
the Nazi skinhead movement - a worldwide phenomenon which extends into the
old Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries, most notably the old East
Germany. The movement also has its attraction for females. In the United States, we see evidence of
young men and not so young men enlisting in everything from survival groups,
anti-Federal Government communal living, Christian Identity Churches that
pursue racist, anti-feminist teachings, neo-nazi groups, the Ku-Klux-Klan, to
the loners who can cause carnage, bombing government buildings and abortion
clinics. The core element of all these organizations is an anti-liberalism,
some would argue an anti-democratic agenda and objective. Gorg Haider of Austria's Freedom Party is
seen by social democrats to be anti-democratic, racist and fascist;
remarkable since his party tool the road to power by democratic means; but
liberals have a tendency to define 'democratic' in a way that suits them. The Politically Correct will never relinquish
power voluntarily, if we have to consider what they do to the family and the
legacy of that on young men. Consider how nation states have been devolved,
how parts of the United Kingdom have been broken up. Unity, community spirit, loyalty and
patriotism are anathema to the Politically Correct. In seeking an identity, many young men
might now turn to that which gives them exactly that the P.C. Brigade and
feminists fear most - a sense of belonging, patriotism, and a sense of
identity and assertiveness. Fascism was always the antithesis of decay,
chaos, disorder and lack of identity. Ill3 p5 Campaigning pays off; Penny drops at Home Office? The Independent is the latest in a long
line of national newspapers to jump on the bandwagon. Their Jan12th issue
reported that the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) was now seriously
considering the very point raised in our Minority Report (copies of which
have mysteriously ended up on editors' desks), namely the unaddressed fatal
flaw of anonymity for men accused of sexual offences (Copies now available
£12.99). Our campaigning has the luck to have the
Mirror move 'on side' in Nov 2000 after two rock stars were both falsely
accused - another central tenet of our Minority Report. The Independent - viewed by some as more
left wing and pro-Gov't than the Observer - could well be testing the waters
for the present Gov't. Our Chairman couldn't resist a close of year
'reminder' letter to the head of the Sexual Offences Review Team, Betty
Moxon. The letter to Moxon is reprinted below,
and The Independent article elsewhere in this issue. Dear Mrs Moxon, I am delighted with the coverage that a
false allegation of rape has so far achieved. I know you will join me in
congratulating The Independent on its sterling series of articles of today,
Jan 12th. I hope I am correct in thanking you for
passing to the DPP our Minority Report. I know we can both look forward to
further stimulating public debate on this matter. Regards, RW, Chairman, ManKind [It took me more than six months of
letters to Moxon, see my website, culminating in a letter where I told her I
reduced the question to words of one and two syllables, before she admitted
that no one in the UK govt has as part of their remit consideration of the
alleged problem of false allegations. I calculate that the class action by
the innocent >33% of rape prisoners in US jails (most of them black - this
is a worldwide racist attack by the white sisterhood on the black brotherhood
- ) will cost the US govt something like $200,000,000,000 in damages -Ed] DPP backs anonymity for defendants in sex cases - Robert
Verkaik, The Independent , 12jan01 The law should be changed to grant
anonymity to people accused of rape and child abuse, the Director of Public
Prosecutions believes. While David Calvert-Smith's comments
fall short of a direct call for such a move, his views have enraged women's
groups and reopened a debate among the legal profession as to whether
defendants in sex cases should have the same protection as their alleged
victims. Asked whether he would support a change
in the law Mr Calvert-Smith, head of the Crown Prosecution Service, said:
"I would certainly not oppose such a proposal... It would not make the
life of a prosecutor any more difficult, and a case could be made [for
granting anonymity until conviction] for those accused of rape or other
sexual offences like child abuse which is just as damaging to a person."
By making it clear that conviction rates
in rape cases - currently running at about 10 per cent of all complaints -
would not be affected by giving anonymity to defendants, Mr Calvert-Smith has
removed the main obstacle to change. A spokesman for the CPS said yesterday
that cases such as those involving Mick Hucknall, the singer with the band
Simply Red, had raised the profile of the issue. Mr Hucknall was arrested by
Surrey police after being falsely accused of rape in November. The acquittal last month of David Jones,
the former manager of Southampton Football Club, who was charged with child
abuse, also prompted calls for the identity of defendants to be protected
until an offence had been proved. Groups representing rape victims said
they were angered by Mr Calvert-Smith's comments. A spokeswoman for Women
Against Rape said: "The consequence of being accused of any serious
crime can be devastating. We are against a special case where men accused of
rape are singled out for special protection.["] She said women needed protection because
rape was a "unique" crime and they would not come forward to report
rape without it. She said Mr Calvert-Smith's comments
would send the wrong signals to rapists. The Labour MP Robin Corbett, chairman of
the Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs, welcomed the DPP's comments. Mr
Corbett, who helped introduce a 1976 Act which granted anonymity to alleged
rapists as well their victims, said: "It appears clear to me if you give
the victim anonymity then you should also give it to the accused up until
conviction.* He added that an acquittal was not
enough to repair the damage to the reputation of a person accused of rape or
other sex crimes. He said the right to anonymity had been
"given away" in 1988 when the Conservatives gave the media the
freedom to identify those accused of rape. The Law Society said yesterday that it
was time the law was reviewed. Malcolm Fowler, chairman of the society's
criminal law committee, said there was a "powerful argument" under
the Human Rights Act for named defendants to claim, in cases where the
complainant was not identified, that their rights had been breached. Article six of the European Convention
on Human Rights gave defendants the right to an impartial trial, he said, and
identifying one party and not the other might create a perception of
unfairness. Stephen Kramer QC, chairman of the
Criminal Bar Association, agreed that a change in the law merited
"serious consideration". A Home Office spokesman said ministers
were "aware of the concern" but had no plans to change the law at
the present. [* We would point out to Jack Straw that
it would have been in his own interest if the sexual offence charge against
his own brother had been kept fully secret.- Ed] Man who served 27 years for murder freed on bail - Joshua Rozenberg, Telegraph, 8feb01, p8 A prisoner freed on bail yesterday after
serving 27 years for murder he says he did not commit could have won his
release at any time during the past quarter of a century if experienced
lawyers had studied his case. They would have realised that his
confessions were inadmissible, the Court of Appeal was told yesterday. .... .... Downing had been denied parole
because he refused to accept responsibility for the killing. .... He was 17
but had the mental age of an 11-year-old .... He was never informed by police that he
was under arrest or in custody and was not told of his right to see a
solicitor. .... Downing .... said he found Mrs Sewell
[the victim] in a pool of blood and tried to help before alerting other
people. A constable finally arrived, but did not
immediately call an ambulance. Instead, Mrs Sewell, a typist, was allowed to
stagger to her feet and stumble around .... She died from her injuries
without giving her attacker's name. .... Letter
from John Rhys of Bristol 30oct00 Dear Mr Catt The letter from the prisoner (Ill
Eagle" of October 2000 p2), should awaken every husband in this country
to unjust convictions for "marital rape" becoming common. He has
the misfortune of suffering long imprisonment for a politically correct
offence not recognised in about 90% of sovereign states and only partially in
the remainder. Men in long term "partnerships" need also worry, as
they are in a similar legal risk simply by cohabiting. A husband can be brought to trial for this
new offence invented by the feminists, if his wife alleges that he merely
"pushed himself upon her even though he shares a bed with her and
permanent residence." There need be no violence or evidence and only his
wife's word to trigger a prosecution Ill p6 and a stupid jury may convict. Few
members of the public understand the current legal situation. Marital rape trials are often show
trials for political feminism. Some members of the Establishment want to use
fear to extinguish the belief amongst the population, supported by
Christianity and all major faiths that marriage is long term stable sexual
union. The fact that a husband convicted of
"marital rape" faces having his name on the sex offenders register
is surely an "extreme and degrading punishment" under terms of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights as such a man would be of no danger to
the general public on release from prison. It would no doubt alarm the average man
in the street to know that extreme feminists are urging the conviction of
thousands of husbands for this "offence" and New Labour seems to be
generally very sympathetic to their views. Their covert method is advising
the legal authorities that marriages where there is a turbulent relationship
should be assumed to be subject to "sexual violence" (a euphemism
for "rape"). Husbands should not that forget that feminists regard
a husband who persuades his wife to make love when she has a headache as
"rapist" Domestic violence is now officially defined, not only as
partner beating but includes "emotional" violence, ie a husband who
"nags" his wife or answers back! [Withholding money from his wife
is now "domestic Violence" - financial violence. - Ed] An increase
in attempted prosecutions may be expected with the current inflation of public
fears on the "domestic violence" issue, by false statistics. The mere fact that intercourse
frequently happens in marriage should not allow a wife to complain at trial,
that may be many years ago one or more of these sexual acts where
"rapes". Aside from the abuse of the word "rape" this is
a formula for the legal harassment and persecution of heterosexual males.
There must be a Statute of Limitation. How can a man prove his innocence to
an alleged "crime" which he can't even remember! It won't be long before we have a
husband given a four year prison sentence, as one was in Australia for
continuing intercourse for a "few seconds" longer than his wife
requested! Lord Mostyn of New Labour earlier this
year championed the new law that has taken away a husbands right even to
cross examine his wife about marital "rape". Yet it is likely that
a wife embittered by a failed marriage or seeking instant destruction of a
good husband's reputation will have invented the allegations! Blackmail as
well as purposeful entrapment by the woman are easy options. The emotional baggage and complexity of
relationships between husbands and wives and indeed long term partners makes
it impossible to safely prove allegations of "rape in marriage".
The very term is a contradiction in terms. The traditional view that man
cannot rape his wife as they have a sexual contract is the only morally
defensible one. The argument that a "rape in
marriage" law is the only way to protect wives against regular unwanted
sex with a husband to whom they are hostile yet living with is nonsense, as a
wife can do this by asking for a separation and non molestation order. The legal inquisition against sex in
marriage, now unleashed, is calculated by feminists to deter young men from
marriage as the law gives no credibility to sexual fulfilment offered by
brides. It is a direct attack on the Christian view that man and wife are
"one flesh" as a leading Catholic writer has commented. It labels a
husband fertilising his wife in order father a child as a "rapist".
This turns traditional morality on its head. If a husband has no legal right
to sex in marriage then neither does his wife from him and the whole concept
of adultery is made meaningless. It is an incitement to wicked wives to
blackmail, and it destroys the trust essential to marriage. For countless centuries it was illegal
for a wife to testify against a husband even if he was involved in serious
crime. Now she can secretly betray him about the most intimate of matters and
effectively start a secret trial. The real motive of the extreme feminist
groups in promoting "marital rape" law was to cast a shadow of
suspicion over marriage, and deter men from entering it. Hence some feminist
indoctrinated young women believe that they have been rescued from the risk
of mass rape in marriage before the law ended husbands conjugal rights. This
is of course the reverse of traditional morality which regarded marriage as
the safe and lawful arena for sex, and extra marital activity as more risky
for. women. Only 20 countries world wide have
"marital rape", and Britain appears to be the only one in which
husbands have no conjugal rights at all. In the USA "marital rape"
law generally confines itself to cruel and violent sexual assault, not energetic
love making. This was the case in this country until 1991. In 1994 Lord
Lestor finally ended the last safeguard in law of husbands conjugal. rights
by removing the words "lawful" from the Sexual Offences Act of
1984. The denial in British law of conjugal
rights is almost certainly against the Declaration of Human Rights which
acknowledges a right to marry and have children. Historically throughout the
world marriage has always been a sexual contract, As a Marxist feminist tells
us in a recent book, conjugal rights where the most hotly guarded rights in
British Law, and found justification in the Judeo Christian tradition,
especially the Bible, which states that a husband and wife become one.
Parliament has in fact never been properly consulted on the matter of its
removal and there has been no public debate, as the 1991 decision by the Law
Lords was obviously a gross error which the establishment is anxious to cover
up. In Canada, where the Human Rights
Declaration has been observed since 1982, feminists have been outraged that
the new legislation has outlawed "shield laws" which prevent the
alleged victim from been cross examined, especially about her sexual history.
Hopefully, if men's groups press their case, similar improvements can be done
here. I think that the best way to
re-establish conjugal rights is to press for the British to be allowed to
have private marriage contracts which cover every aspect of marriage
including sex and divorce settlement. These are very popular in many foreign
countries, and should be made to prevent State interference in what is after
all a private agreement between two parties. [This will be resisted to the death by
the legal industry, who will always insist on tearing up any agreements not
imposed by a judge. This maximizes lawyers' fees, and also maximizes
adversariality, which further increases lawyers' fees. This issue is a good
test of the good faith of the legal industry, and proves that lawyers' fees
are put before the interests of children of divorce. The legal industry will
always tear up a signed and witnessed agreement between spouses, when one
spouse wants to renege, or is encouraged by radfems or lawyers to renege. -
Ed] Thank you for reading this long letter.
I have read your brilliant book the "Hook and the Sting" [on
website www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/]. The destruction of men's conjugal
rights is regarded by some feminists as their greatest historical triumph,
and a sure fire way to destroy marriage by attrition. For that reason as well
as the injustice and suffering to husbands imprisoned by it we must act. Yours sincerely, John Rhys PS. The survey in London by Ruth Hall,
"Ask Any Woman" (1982) which was the excuse for removal of
husband's conjugal rights from common law, stated that 1 in 4 wives is
"raped". The survey was on a small scale, confined to an London
Inner City area and highly selective.. (See Lynn Segal's book Slow Motion
Page 244.) It appears that feminists in Parliament are using the internet to communicate information to feminist groups, resulting from Parliamentary debates, but not printing it in the House of Commons Hansard. If you search the net under "marital rape" for websites etc likely to be used by extremist feminists the foll |