Ill Eagle 2001




Ill Eagle 16

Ill Eagle 16 .. Aug 2001 .... ISSN 1466-9005


Ill16 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




 Ill Eagle 16 .. Aug 2001 .... ISSN 1466-9005

Ill16 p1

‘Wave’ Dad banged up with Murderers

 - Kirsty Turner,

Sunday Independent 8apr01

in Ill Eagle 15, p1

2aug01     From Mark Harris

Dear Ivor,

Can I please place a very big thank you in the next "Ill Eagle" to everyone who supported me during my stay at HMP Pentonville. I am totally convinced the pressure upon the family court Judiciary-who, let's face it, have little respect nation-wide anyway - played a major part in my release.

I am still in total disbelief as to what Madness Munby did in sending me down for such things as trying to bribe the mother into complying with a Contact Order (4 months), giving my children their birthday presents on a contact last year (4 months), driving near their home in hope of seeing them between contacts (6 months consecutive to the 4 months) while working as a driving instructor, but also his total disregard of four very good Court Welfare Reports and eighteen (yes, 18) Social Service reports of observed Contact between 1994 - Oct 2000, ALL of which detail my kids happy at contact.

Unfortunately, we had the Official Solicitor involved, who in my experience  simply does not ever support contact if the mother opposes it, so therefore sends a Child Psychiatrist (why on earth we had one of them when no-one ever claimed any of my three kids were mentally ill, I'll never know) to interview the kids in the mothers presence, and therefore gets them dissenting against contact, so then Mad Dog Munby could then elevate this version of the kids wishes to the forefront, and disregard the 22 good welfare reports.

I tried to appeal this on 2 July, but Sloss and Thorpe dismissed my appeal as it was Madness Munby's "discretion" to disregard the contact reports by a total of two CWOs and five Social Workers, in favour of the Corrupt Child

Psychiatrist (Dr Hamish Cameron, 2 Kings Ride Gate, Richmond, Surrey) who never saw a single contact.

Therefore, although endless Perjury by the mother is accepted and encouraged, bias reports-against the father of course-are often passed through and accepted "on the nod", in my case GOOD welfare reports are simply disregarded in favour of the mothers wishes-just get the kids interviewed in front of her!

I have now gone back to Mad Dog Munby with my youngest's latest school reports, this is the first year she has not had any contact at all. All her previous reports (she's 10) describe her as "a popular member of the class", "polite and helpful", eager to please", etc. This year's now describes her as "very disruptive", "attention seeking" "very silly at times" and "often falling out with her peers". The only change to her life in the last year has been no contact with me at all. Interests of the child, Munby style! Let's see what his reaction to her  reports in my application to restore contact will be-is he man enough to admit he got it wrong? I won't hold my breath.


I will post a copy of the Wiltshire Gazette article from our demo on 21 July, and his response via the Lord Chancellors department. As can be seen, they/he are defending their position. But I do wonder just how much longer they will hold out before wanting to talk to us. We shall see, the next protest, August 18, Somerset!

If Madness Munby ignores or dismisses my application to restore contact based on the adverse school report, I intend holding a series of vigils outside his Manningford Bruce home (Frith Copse, Manningford Bruce, nr Pewsey, Wiltshire) in due course.

Anyone interested in coming along would be more than welcome. Press have already shown an interest, and I do intend to leaflet his village inviting  the residents along to discover what sort of man lives in their village, with the lure of soft drinks, crisps, sweets and snacks for all those who come along.

His anger in Court just five days after the excellent protest outside his London home in April, I think, shows this nature of action - to the very doorstep of their exclusive homes - is a very effective weapon of hope to bring eventual justice to the unjust and corrupt family courts of today.

All any father wants is the same status as mothers new man; a presumption that you are fine to live with/spend time with/look after your kids UNLESS you actually do something wrong. Just why should (as in my case) I live with my kids until the eldest was almost 7, then in the space of just 2 hours (the time it took my ex to clear my home of possessions and children while I was at a Football Match) I have then had to go to Court over what is now 120+ times just to prove (unsuccessfully on the most recent) that I am good enough to just see them?

Yet her new man moved in, and has never been interviewed, checked out, or even observed with my kids, although THORPE himself found (Court of Appeal, dec95) that he had indeed ASSAULTED them in breach of orders not to. And, of course, to this day, still lives with them. What we must all continue to do is ram home, time and again, the injustice, farce and corruption that goes on every day in these Family Courts. The shift AWAY from contact has got progressively worse since Sloss became President of the Family Courts. Increasingly, the rarity of positive welfare reports are consistently rejected by the current breed of hostile feminist/wimpish male Judges coming though the ranks since Sloss's appointment, but negative welfare reports are followed, consistently.

It is painfully obvious that since Sloss took charge (and backed up by the aggressive Mrs Justice Bracewell in the role as chair of the children act advisory committee) that ANY form of contact order is unlikely if the Court think the mother will become problematic over it.

All we seek is the same status as the mother's new man/men-that being a simple presumption you are fine with your kids UNLESS you actually do something. If it's good

Ill16 p2

enough for the mother's new plaything, then it's sure good enough for fathers. We have press attention, the vast majority of the public perceive the Family Courts as bias to the mothers, we must, now the Judiciary are panicking, take them to the CORRUPTION that goes on, every single day up and down the Country, of perfectly good men being denied the right to be fathers to their kids for no good reason at all. We have right on our side, there are enough of us to bring about change, it's a simple case of us ALL being sufficiently motivated to do something - Join the protest movement.

More information as to future protests, call me 01752 346395.

- Mark Harris. 2aug01

Ivor, Demo in Somerset this coming Saturday, Aug 18, which means it will probably have happened by the time illeagle comes through. However, Candlelight vigils are planned outside a number of Judges houses on 25 Sept at 8.30pm for 1/2 hours.

We are doing one outside Sloss' in Exeter, perhaps you could seek support for ones outside Bracewell's (Somerton, Somerset), Thorpe's (Seend, Wiltshire), HHJ Hamilton (Coventry), and at least one London vigil (Probably outside Lady Justice Hale in N1).

You can put my number as a contact if you want, and I will put interested parties in touch with local organisers.  - Mark Harris.   12aug01


From Judge Munby's ludicrous (Harris) Jail Committal order;

For instance; "....4) On 26 April 2000 he did hand birthday presents to (middle) and (youngest) during the session of contact and without the presents first having been approved by Plymouth City Council thereby breaching paragraph (h) of the order,...."

  " (2) for each of his said contempts 2,4,5. and 8 above the Contemnor Mark Dean Harris do stand committed to Her Majesty's Prison at Pentonville for a period of 4 months or until he shall be sooner discharged by due course of      Law ...."

 As my favourite barrister said to me, the senior Family Court judges come from Planet Zog. – Ed


The Abuse of Power

Patricia Hewett, The Abuse of Power, pub. Martin Robertson 1982, p93; "The ability of the courts to extend the law of contempt in unexpected, indeed absurd, directions, was amply illustrated by the Harman case. Harriet Harman [now deputy to the Attorney General], legal officer of NCCL .... The Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal both held that Harriet Harman had committed a serious contempt of court .... the govt refused to accept an amendment to the Contempt of Court Bill to reverse the Harman decision. ...."

Also see p88; "Perhaps the most difficult consequence of secrecy to identify accurately is the manipulation of information [by Munby] which such a system permits. The cloak of secrecy is not evenly woven. Ministers [and judges] are only too willing to pass out to receptive journalists the official [Munby, ignorant] version of [Harris criminal[ events, knowing that their versions cannot be set against the background studies .... But the cloak is wearing threadbare." [1982! Sloss secrecy is well out of date. - Ed]


Parents take access fight to judge's home

- Jill Crooks, Devizes Gazette & Herald, 26july01


Divorced and separated parents fighting for access to their children took their protests to the Seend home of a senior judge at the weekend.

About 35 parents holding placards took part in a demonstration outside the home of Lord Justice Mathew Thorpe, one of the country's most senior appeal judges on Saturday afternoon.

The parents had come from London, Cambridge, Plymouth, Bristol and Wiltshire. They have all been battling with the courts for access to their children.

As they stood outside the driveway to Lord Justice Thorpe's house they shouted "children need both parents."

Protest organiser Mark Harris, and Tony Coe, both members of the Equal parenting Council, knocked on the judge's front door to deliver letters outlining the concerns felt by parents about the way family courts are run.

In the drive was a white L-registered Volvo 440 car. The shutters on both ground floor widows were drawn. No one answered the door so Mr. Coe posted the letters through the judge's letter box.

The protest continued for a few minutes outside the drive and as the protesters dispersed, two police cars pulled up, but there was no trouble.

Lord Justice Thorpe had been invited to the Bell inn in Seend to discuss the problems, but did not attend.

Mr. Coe, the President of the Equal Parenting Council, said that family courts were not carrying through the ruling contained in the 1989 Children's Act that parenting should be shared.

He said: "The key point is that one parent is being excluded for no good reason. If there is abuse or violence going on then of course there should be limitation of the parent's role, but we are talking about ordinary, loving, devoted parents that are being excluded from their children's life.

"Why is it that one parent has all the say? The other parent has the right to make an application to the court but the other parent can keep saying no and it can go on for months and years.

"If the system doesn't value the other parent (the parent who is not living with the children) then the children will think that. From the point of separation we need to treat the parents equally."

Mr. Coe dubbed the protests outside judges' homes the "judicial education programme." He added: "Not everybody agrees with the approach we are taking and I fully understand that view.

"But we have to make these people feel a little uncomfortable because the process makes our lives and our children's lives uncomfortable."

Richard Day, a 50-year-old father of two teenage daughters, has been fighting the Child Support Agency and the courts for the past seven years. He says as a result he has suffered financially and emotionally and sees his daughters  no more than twice a year....

"We are reasonably minded people. We want what is best for our children and we need a system to be doing the same. If judges are not doing their jobs properly they should be sacked."

Lord Justice Thorpe, 62, has been an appeal judge in the family division on the High Court since October 1995.

His first marriage ended in divorce in 1989 and he remarried in the same year. He has three sons.

He was unavailable for comment about the protest outside his home in Seend....


A nasty piece of work

It may be worth pointing out that the nasty feminist who sent Mark back to jail when he lost his appeal was none other than Justice Hale who, a decade ago, when she was Mzzz Brenda Hoggett, said; "Family law no longer makes any attempt to buttress the stability of marriage or any other union. It has adopted principles for the protection of children and dependent spouses which could be made equally applicable to the unmarried. In such circumstances, the piecemeal erosion of the distinction between marriage and non-married cohabitation may be expected to continue. Logically we have already reached a point at which, rather than discussing which remedies should now be extended to the unmarried, we should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purpose."

- email from Brian Robertson.  19 June 2001 23:26


A rider to the Mowbray Editorial, below. Crucially, research shows that whereas the mother's role is "touchy-feely", compromising, soft, that of the father is as described in Mowbray's speech. ("Wait till your father comes home!") Poodle-man judges connive with radfem judges to force those few men they do not evict from their homes and children, to improperly play the mother's role, particulerly in the courts, thus destroying for their children the fatherly, upright example which protects them from lapsing into drugs and other loose behaviour. When a mother commits perjury it is less damaging to her children than when their father does. It is the persistent encouraging of perjury and of breaches of court orders which feminises the family courts and undermines fathers. - Ed

Ill p3




 .... My dear dear lord,

The purest treasure mortal times afford

Is spotless reputation; that away,

Men are but gilded loam or painted clay.

A jewel in a ten-times barr'd-up chest

Is a bold spirit in a loyal breast.

Mine honour is my life; both grow in one;

Take honour from me, and my life is done:

Then, dear my liege, mine honour let me try;

In that I live, and for that will I die.

-         Mowbray's Speech, Richard II, Act 1, Scene 1.


The great crime committed by Sloss, Thorpe, Hale and the rest of the anti-social rogues at the top of the Family Division is their continuing to inculcate a climate of perjury. They caused their junior judges to encourage perjured libels against fathers in order to validate the confiscation of fathers' children and property.

This was a crime much greater than theft, as we see in Mowbray's speech. Has Sloss ever bothered to consider the impact on a father when he finds that a judge in a secret court is so keen to believe any ridiculous allegation against any father? The clergyman caught up in the Orkneys scandal told me that a false charge of sexual abuse goes to one's innermost soul. These judges have been playing with fire. Of all people, because of Cleveland, Sloss ought to know. What she learned in Cleveland makes her failure to clamp down on perjury in her family courts all the more inexcusable.

Those who commit such high crime must not be allowed a hiding place. Until today, they have been inaccessible because of the weakness of a small number of men controlling the Men's Movement. Now that the collaborators have been brushed aside, the rogue judges stand exposed. They have to be got rid of as soon as possible, and replaced by an honest judicial system, or no system at all, so as to bring an end to the damage these irresponsible, vindictive judges continue to inflict on our children's image of their missing fathers.

Ivor Catt       21july01


When a judge tries the shrink ploy

As in my divorce, which pre-dated the film One flew over the cuckoo's nest, judges may connive with a divorcing wife to pretend that her husband has psychiatric problems. This is one way for a judge to validate his expropriating the father and cutting him off from his children. In my case, my wife launched a posse of three shrinks at me, including mad shrink Bryan Robinson, who remained desperate to drug me for a year, but fortunately failed to do so. So the judge had to invent other ruses, and still took my home, all my assets and my children.

I found some good material which far more succinctly than I can, give reasons to tread this ground with great care.

I also think this may assist you when dealing with a court calling for "psychiatric reports".

Here is the link:

and The Rhetorical Paradigm in Psychiatric History:


Damned if you do ...

- Nicci Gerrard, Observer,

Review, 22apr01, p1


One in three women has had an abortion and 92% of us agree with the right to choose....

[Two full pages on the subject of abortion. Fathers did not enter into the subject. I think they first appear briefly half way through the second page;]

.... I told my boyfriend, and he said; "It's up to you." That made it more difficult, because he was involved, and the decision wasn't so completely obvious....

.... Every so often a man will try to stop his partner having an abortion, and we enter the jungle of moral issues. Should men have any legal rights over the potential child? Over a bundle of cells inside a woman's body?

A few weeks ago one such case hit the headlines. Stephen Hone .... [total number of words about Hone/Hansell, just over 100 - two column inches.]

.... One of them had been raped by her husband, who wanted her to give him a child.

[That was the total appearance of fathers in a two page article. - Ed]


ManKind and Ill Eagle can be reached at:-

1). Suite 367, 2 Lansdowne Row, 

     London W1X 8HL.  


3)  Email  


The Editor, Ivor Catt, 121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR, England.

( 01727 - 864257   Email  ivorcatt@ )


The M6 Protester

Family Life in Britain - 2001

 Mark Harris is the divorced father who is prevented from seeing his children. But Jason Biddulph is a married father and he is also prevented from seeing his children. Both have tried all legal means and have been jailed for their pains.

Jason Biddulph and his wife have had their children taken off them by Birmingham Social Services - itself under review by the Ministry. Their crime was firstly being poor, secondly to be poorly educated, thirdly to be made unemployed (after an industrial accident) and fourthly to be overwhelmed by the complexities and bureaucracies that implement our social laws and regulations. His only way out was to protest. His protest was to threaten to jump onto the busy M6 Motorway in Birmingham on May 10th 2001.

The children had been whisked away to an undisclosed destination by Social Services. The children's grandparents (paternal and maternal) had been denied contact or any visits. Even the children's mother, Mrs. Biddulph, had been refused contact and visits. This has all the hallmarks of a stitch-up.

Jason appeared handcuffed before Judge McCarthy in Wolverhampton County Court. It was the first anniversary of the death of his 3-year-old daughter Paige - the incident which triggered the massive Social Services (SS) over-reaction.

Meanwhile Social Services had already put all his children up for legal and permanent adoption. Members of SS staff had been to the Biddulph households to collect momentos and family photos to give to the children as they grew up to remind them of their parents and grandparents, who would most probably be dead when the children reached the age of majority.

Jason's barrister asked the court for a psychological report to be carried out. Immediately the judge, very surprised, said; 'But that will take about 8 weeks. Why do you want him to remain in custody for another two months? He's been there for a month already'. This was an obvious display of sympathy from him.

The smears against this husband of many "convictions" printed in the newspapers prior to the trial hearing were scurrilous. They relate to his prosecutions for shoplifting - the only items ever stolen were clothes and nappies for his children.

For months he awaited trial nursing broken ribs and rope marks around his neck - not from his attempted jump but from the police who came to "rescue" him, and protect him from self-harm and who "gently" lowered him but who actually injured him. No family member has been allowed to photograph his injuries (B'ham Six ?).

When so many families are falling apart, do Social Services really need to add one more to that number, or to justify their own employment by tearing apart an intact family? Yes. Read Baskerville on their need to justify their jobs and income levels. – RW


From The Times Thursday 17 May 2001 : Law report

Jobseekers' allowance sex bias unlawful


Hockenjos v Secretary of State for Social Security

Before Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Tuckey and Lord Justice Kay

Judgment May 2, 2001

The statutory scheme of the Jobseekers' Act 1995 was to provide protection against the risk of unemployment. The Act therefore fell within the Equal Treatment Directive which prohibited discrimination on the ground of sex, whether directly or indirectly. The Court of Appeal so

Ill16 p4

held in a reserved judgement in allowing an appeal brought by a separated father, Eugen Herman Hockenjos, against the dismissal by Mr Commissioner Goodman on May 2, 2000 of his appeal from the social security appeal tribunal which had dismissed his appeal from the adjudication officer, holding that he was not entitled to an additional amount in respect of his two children who stayed with him for different but approximately equal parts of the week, as they did with their mother who received child benefit.


Comment by EH: The COA has now instructed the Social Security Commissioner to finally hear arguments that it is unlawful when a parent (nearly always the father) who has parental responsibility (as defined in 89/UK/ Children Act) gets excluded from obtaining child additions and Family Premium increases when temporarily dependent on Social Security Benefits.

What will be considered is the question of whether direct linkage of Dependants Allowances to receipt of Child Benefit has a disproportionate impact on fathers when compared to mothers. I say linkage to receipt of Child Benefit creates Indirect Discrimination and that such linkage is in breach of European Law Directive 79/7/EEC.

No adjudication of the claim that indirect discrimination operates has been made to date.

The COA ruling merely established that Income based Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) is a scheme that falls under the orbit of EU Directive 79/7 (council directive which makes it unlawful for EU countries to operate Social Security schemes for the unemployed, sick and disabled if such a scheme has elements of direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of a claimant's gender).


Dr Pelling's record

To: Ivor Catt

Date: 18 July 2001 14:03

Hi there,

I think it is about time that I personally put on record the credit owed to Dr Pelling for what he has done in my case which recently made the headlines. See the write-up in The Times:,,200001-202923,00.html

For the last three years Dr Pelling has worked brilliantly developing with me the fine legal arguments. Not only that, but he was also extremely supportive when I got emotionally tired of fighting a case which has tremendous opportunity to do much good for fathers and their children. Dr Pelling dealt with all the paperwork, he photocopied for me, he prepared bundles, he even walked to the court to file necessary urgent paperwork, and most importantly: it was Dr Pelling who acted as my representative on five occasions as the case wound its way through the appeals process. Without Dr Pelling it would not have been possible to fight my case. And for all that work and committed help he received the princely reward of  about one dozen London Underground travel tickets when he came to see me!

The only reason why Dr Pelling's name does not appear in the Court of Appeal write-up is because the rules of court prevented him from addressing the court himself. Thus I have to say: All credit is owed to him is huge.

Hope the myths that hold Michael as anything other than a committed fighter for father and children's rights are soon laid to rest - I hope people would recognise Michael for what he is: namely a tireless fighter for civil liberties and human rights, and doing a great job.

I also should put on record that FNF was not able to help me with my request with either statistics or names of persons. Given that FNF has been around for 25 years their inability to assist me with details on people who have (like I had) a shared residence order was most disappointing. FNF failure also is a pointed why it's time for a massive shake-up.

I wish FNF people would judge Dr Pelling on the basis of his record. Then they would be able to see that when dealing with matters of law, courts, procedures,  Dr Pelling is the most knowledgeable person of all the people who want to get a fair deal for fathers.

I think when the Old Guard FNF trustees wanted to chuck him out of FNF it may have been because they simply could not handle it that there is someone who can actually achieve results without going along with disempowered fatherhood rituals which Old Guard FNF is encouraging fathers to accept.

If you need more info please feel free to contact me - Eugen Hockenjos


Secret Courts

I studied the case which Pelling took to the European Court of Human Rights quite a lot, leading to a 5-2 judgement against him. It is very wrong that people are trying to cite cases when Pelling loses, to argue that when he loses, he damages fathers and their children.

The dissenting judgement by the Greece and the Lithuanian(?) judges is very important, and will be the basis on which we (= Pelling) goes forward. Years ago, John Campion told me that Europe, like the UK, was heavily feminised. Now radfem dogma is full of inconsistencies. Pelling needs to go to these lengths to tease out these inconsistencies.

In any case, I hope the recent Hock victory against the Secretary of State in the Appeal Court (great credit for that going to Pelling), and the recent Pelling victory against FNF in the High Court, will stop these innuendoes against Pelling's excellent work in court, very much to the benefit of fathers and their children. Pelling's ability and dedication is far greater than we deserve. – Ed


Women's Quarterly

- summer01, no. 28. The Journal of the Independent Women's Forum.

p25; ....when choices and other factors are included, women earn 98 cents on a man's dollar. Feminist organizations like to claim that the wage gap is much wider, painting a bleak picture of the status of women. Crittenden notes that the IWF arrived as the 2-cent gap by comparing young childless women and men. [This is what I do at . This maps very well onto; ".... the pay gap between women and men is largely a result of family responsibilities. The earnings of single childless women, on average, are over 95 percent of those of single, childless men: but married mothers earn, on average, only 60 per cent of the pay of married fathers." - Patricia Hewitt and Penelope Leach, Social Justice, Children and Families, pub. IPPR, 1993, page v." Ms Joshi, North London, has gone further by inventing the concept of "lifetime earnings". Women need to have their lifetime earnings made up to those of men because they do not earn when mothering. A rough estimate puts their lifetime (mothering) loss at £200,000. The obvious solution is to impose a man tax, payable only by men. With the population equally divided, this means that each man should pay a further £100,000 in tax, which will be about £2,500 p.a. during his working life, to be given tax free to an equal number of women. Thus, the after-tax income of a single working woman, for fairness, will be £5,000 p.a. more than that for a man, married or unmarried. Margaret Jay has been agitating about lifetime earnings. Jay and Joshi please note. Jay believes that only pay parity will free women from bondage. All I have done is roughly work out the numbers necessary to meet her vision of pay parity. Jay will like the side-effect, that single women will not marry. Her marriages were rocky. - Ed]

p30; Many govt agencies proudly trumpet their partnerships with feminist groups. .... [One] including [the dreadful] NOW and the National Committee on Pay Equity - the latter organisation that uses misleading data about the gender wage gap to call for more regulation of the economy on behalf of women.

[The present initiative, to increase single women's pay (by exploiting the low earnings of married women), will push that of single women above that of single men, and make young men even more unmarriageable. One reason will be that the financial penalty for both women and men who marry will increase.  iwf have assembled ten major statistics which have been falsified by radfems throughout the world. One, of course, is Stinko's "one in four" lie trotted out by Jay and Livingstone. - Ed]

p7; There is a widespread belief that sexual abuse of children is endemic to society. This is a relatively new notion. In fact, it can be traced to a particular moment in history: April 17, 1971.

On that day New York Radical Feminists, a group that at its height boasted no more than 400 members, held a groundbreaking conference in New York. .... It was Rush's conclusion that electrified her audience: "The family itself is an instrument of sexual and other forms of child abuse," Rush declared. She added that this abuse "is permitted because it is an

Ill16 p5

unspoken but prominent factor in socializing and preparing the female to accept a subordinate role .... In short the sexual abuse of female children is a process of education that prepares them to become the wives and mothers of America."

Many women at the gathering had backgrounds in the New Left of the 1960s. They felt their male comrades had exploited them, relegating them to making coffee, typing, and sex.

Now they could show that feminists had uncovered the great American secret: Behind the picket fences, hidden by those starched suburban curtains, fathers were raping their daughters to prepare them for their proper role in society. Beyond racism, imperialism, and capitalism lay the true root of evil - patriarchy .... Catherine MacKinnon, the law professor who helped develop the legal definitions of sexual harassment, announced (absent any evidence) that 4.5% of all women are victims of incest by their fathers and, if brothers,, stepfathers, uncles, and family friends are thrown in, the figure rose to 40%. "In fact," wrote MacKinnon, "it is the woman who has not been abused who deviates." Seemingly scholarly studies by feminists-with-credentials such as Harvard psychiatrist Judith Herman bolstered the case for widespread incest. Herman dedicated her 1981 book, Father-Daughter Incest, to the women "estimated by us to be millions, who have personally experienced incestuous abuse." No wonder Andrea Dworkin wrote that, for a woman, the home is the most dangerous place in the world! .... According to Herman, Freud simply could not confront the reality that incest "is an inevitable result of patriarchal family structure." ....

[IWF, in which Christina Hoff Sommers is a key player, is the backlash against the man-hating, anti-family, massively federal funded NOW. Better late than never. ]

The first 80 pages of Catherine A. MacKinnon, Towards a Feminist Theory of the State, pub. Harvard UP, are entitled; "Feminism and Marxism". Erin Pizzey's friend Cools said she had a major influence in the drafting of Canadian legislation. Erin, our 28oct00 conference speaker, says that feminists are marxist. Now see nasty Hale, back on p2.


'Who Stole Feminism ?'

by Christina Hoff Sommers.

- Review by Antonia,

a reader from UK, 22may01


Next I'll try to get a copy of her 'The War Against Boys' and review it. 

Brilliant expose of gender feminism.

This book is unique. It exposes the myths propounded by gender feminists about women's oppression and victimhood, but without preaching. The author has a very lucid style, and goes for an unusual tactic as far as feminist writers are concerned, which is to hunt down important statistics.

 Sommers relentlessly hunts down the sources of widely-quoted statistics about women (1 in 4 are victims of rape, 150, 000 women in the USA die of anorexia every year, etc.etc.) - statistics which have been publicised by gender feminists. They are false and therefore profoundly misleading to the general public. They are also very damaging for public policy. This is what interests me most about this book. I wish someone in the UK would write a book like this, because these issues never get thrashed out in the open like in the US, and they really need to be. Intellectually, Sommers scores best in this book on debunking 'feminist epistemology', the erroneous view that philosophy and science done by women elicits a different set of methods. This is very insulting to female academics, most of whom do not agree with the philosophy behind gender feminism. Gender feminists have tried to promote things like feminist philosophy of science and even mathematics, which is ludicrous but also, again, an affront to those women who do exceptionally well in these fields. As a woman I cannot help think that one of the driving forces behind gender feminism is a secret jealousy of those women who have succeeded academically, socially and politically without it. That is why these people are so infuriated by Sommers' book and have to resort to being so rude about it. So, all in all, this book is a very challenging read, whatever you think of the various types of feminism. Hurling abuse at it will only serve to further confirm its conclusions.


Lessing lashes out

- Louette Harding, You, Mail on Sunday, 12aug01, p10

Doris Lessing's The Golden Notebook was seen as one of the 60s' great feminist novels. Yet these days Lessing has nothing but scorn for the women's movement, and says that it is men who are undervalued. .... She has won .... the prestigious Asturias prize .... and will be going to the presentation. .... 'every journalist will say, "You have been fighting for the rights of women ...." and I will patiently say, "No, I haven't." But it's a waste of time. I fill a need.' ....

She reserves her scorn for the women's movement, likening its early days to a little girl ripping off her knickers: 'The great figures of that time do have a pretty exhibitionist streak.' There followed a period 'when they were so heavy and pompous and they couldn't say anything without rubbishing men. It was a religion. They had a faith and you couldn't attack it. You couldn't make jokes, God forbid.'

She believes the pendulum has swung so far that 'old-fashioned love is in defiance of the spirit of the times. It is hard to defend. I know several people who are rather guilty and apologetic about the fact that they have a totally satisfactory love going on.'

.... ' Women do give up a great deal for their children but of course so do men. It's not noticed when men do it. I'm trying all the time to combat this automatic women-here, men-there business. We're always assuming we're so different, but I'm wondering .... I don't think we are.'


Appetite for family destruction

A little-noticed commission is beginning work in Virginia that has major implications nationwide for both families and governmental ethics. Every four years, each state is required to review its guidelines for child support. In Virginia the outcome may be less remarkable than the process.

The last review in 1999 was a classic case of the foxes guarding the hen house. The review panel was selected by the director of the state's Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE), and at least 10 of the 12 members derived income from the divorce system: two judges, four lawyers, a feminist, an enforcement official, two custodial parents, and a legislator.  All these people have a stake in encouraging divorce and criminalizing fathers and therefore in making child support as onerous as possible. "By virtue of the Director of DCSE deciding its make-up, conflict-of-interest concerns are both evident and also reflective of much larger improprieties."

The words are from the minority report of Barry Koplen, the lone representative of parents paying court-ordered child support....



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  giving their name, postal address, telephone number or email address.

No expenses will be faced by volunteers, and confidentiality is guaranteed.


"ANC trio 'plotted to murder Mbeki'

- Tim Butcher,

Telegraph, 26apr01, p17

".... three senior members of the ruling African National Congress were accused of plotting to kill President Thabo Mbeki .... who has looked increasingly under threat after a series of public policy gaffes over Aids and Zimbabwe. .... Mbeki refused to deny that his life was being threatened ...."


["The [AIDS] Industry has to destroy Mbeki. There is so much money at stake ...." - Ill Eagle 11, oct00, p4]

Ill16 p6

William Hetherington

This man needs your help!

Highlights of the William J. Hetherington Case

A case of false accusation by a wife against her husband during a bitter custody dispute. Help is needed now!

Wil is in a Michigan prison on a Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) conviction. His wife claimed that he had raped her. The case was a matter of "he said/she said". Wil has been in prison, now, for more than 14 years. During all of that time he has constantly maintained his innocence. - Ill Eagle 15, may01. For latest update, go to


Women's unit 'failing in its role'

- Sarah Womack,

Telegraph, 9aug01, p10

A scathing assessment of the govt's women's unit and its work was published by the Equal Opportunities Commission yesterday.

It said the unit, which would cost taxpayers £2.3 million this year, had failed to meet key criteria set down by Labour, which included clear aims, ....

"On occasion there has been tension between promoting a family-friendly policy and a woman-friendly one. The govt's support of the former and hostility to the latter generated an ambivalence regarding the women's unit." .... widespread criticism of Baroness Jay .... criticised after spending £100,000 telling women looking for work to visit the Job Centre or look in the .... papers.

[Do we see here that EOC radfems can casually write their propaganda that the family oppresses women, and then a female (radfem?) journalist puts it in the Telegraph? - Ed.]

"'I am so angry about the rude way she treated me, making me feel like a worm, that I wrote saying so and posted it through her letterbox....' - Sally Soames, Sunday Times photographer, on the Labour peeress Baroness Jay" - Sunday Times, 12aug01, sect. 4 p10.


The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage

When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family, like every other 'bourgeois' institution, with fierce hatred, and set out with a will to destroy it. 'To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of the ages we had to give it a good shakeup, and we did,' declared Madame Smidovich, a leading Communist and active participant in the recent discussion. So one of the first decrees of the Soviet Government abolished the term 'illegitimate children.' This was done simply by equalizing the legal status of all children, whether born in wedlock or out of it, and now the Soviet Government boasts that Russia is the only country where there are no illegitimate children. The father of a child is forced to contribute to its support, usually paying the mother a third of his salary in the event of a separation, provided she has no other means of livelihood.  The Atlantic Monthly July 1926

The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage

"Men took to changing wives with the same zest which they displayed in the consumption of the recently restored forty-per-cent vodka."              by A Woman Resident in Russia


The question whether marriage as an institution should be abolished is now being debated all over Russia with a violence and depth of passion unknown since the turbulent early days of the Revolution. Last October a bill eliminating distinctions between registered and unregistered marriages and giving the unmarried consort the status and property rights of the legal wife was introduced in the Tzik, or Central Executive Committee. So much unforeseen opposition to the proposed law developed that the Tzik decided to postpone its final adoption until the next session, meanwhile initiating a broad popular discussion of the project....

Full text at

Beatrix Campbell

In 1983/87 Beatrix Campbell co-authored a book Sweet Freedom with Anna Coote. Coote is one of the close Harriet Harman - Patricia Hewett trio. ("Over the past twenty years Patricia Hewett, Anna Coote and I have developed our ideas together" - Harriet Harman, The Century Gap, 1993, pvii.; Patricia Hewett, About Time ...., 1993; "I want to thank my colleagues at IPPR, .... Anna Coote .... Harried Harman .... gave me helpful comments ....") Thus, Bea's extremely nasty hatred of men is close to the centre of the Blair government.

[Elsewhere, on TV, Bea Campbell announced that she was lesbian. Her attacks on heterosexual men (below) clash with the statistics, which say that 35% of paedophiles are homosexual, although homosexuals make up less than 2% of the population (Ill Eagle 10, p2). However, some sources claim that lesbians despise gay men.]


Unofficial Secrets

- Beatrix Campbell,

pub. Virago 1988

p23 "[Dr Buchanan said;] 'A child's vagina is not made for abuse, it doesn't dilate. So for abusers who want orifices the anus is the place. They've been at it for years. Abusers will abuse anything - holes in the floor, their own children, anybody else's, anyone or anything.'

"In the 1970s Buchanan's consciousness had been raised by reading feminist texts like Shere Hite's studies of adult sexual relationships. ' .... the pressure women felt and all those for whom there was no pleasure in sex at all. It was shattering. Sex was designed for chaps. Male attitudes play a major part in abuse: pressure, coercion, threats.'" [At our 28oct00 conference, Lynette Burrows told us that when on TV with Shere Hite she, and secretly the men present, found Shere totally ridiculous. This demonstration via Bea of her influence close to Blair's Cabinet tells us that Lynette is wrong to ask us to laugh Shere off. Nasty, false propaganda is circling around Blair. - Ed]

p153 "The men's movement. What made the Cleveland case so remarkable was not so much the number of referrals as the mass dissent from the diagnosis. Not in 100 years had patriarchal society been so profoundly and publicly confronted by the scale of men's sexual abuse of children. Male sexuality was the problem, but in the great sex scandal of the 1980s that had become almost unsayable."

p164. ".... whether professional men have children .... doesn't make any difference - they don't care for them anyway, someone else does .... men's irresponsible fatherhood is material to our social world ...."

[Bea sees the Cleveland sex abuse as inhering in male sexuality, particularly that of fathers. Fathers assert patriarchal power by violence and sexual abuse, or else the threat of them. Thus it makes good sense that this govt's agents cut off as many children from their fathers as possible. The very low statistics on father violence and father sexual abuse caused falsifier Stinko to switch talking (in the dreadful Yllo 1988 book Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse) about a woman's horror of the threat of violence, which threat lasts longer than actual violence. (This whole fraud collapses under the suppressed stat that women initiate more violence than do men. {Ill Eagle 3, p8} ?He was going to hit me, so I hit him first?) Anyone wanting to dismiss Stinko should bear in mind that Margaret Jay, close to Blair, promotes this Stinko idea of Fear of Violence. Even though she also quotes Stinko's false "one in four" stat, Jay can avoid facing the music when 1 in 4 is discredited by switching to Stinko's Fear of Violence. These women are deeply disturbed, anti-social, evil, devious, and close to Blair. - Ed      Also see]


From the last Ill Eagle, p11

["Also, the organisation is irrationally biased against homosexual men. This prejudice is reflected in the pages of Ill Eagle...."


I wrote to Aiden as follows;

"29mar01 What we need is your definition of

1. Homosexual

2. Homophobe"

"27mar01 I would be grateful if you cited the locations in Ill Eagle where you have found evidence of homophobia. - 27mar01"

I wrote that I would like to add these clarifications to his piece in Ill Eagle. (draft Ill Eagle sent to Aiden on 16apr01 and 8may01). In apite of his excellent speech to us on 28oct00, we have to conclude from his persistent refusal to define his

Ill16 p7

terms (above) that he is out of his depth. Confusing buggery with holding hands is like confusing a deep sea diver with someone who takes an occasional shower. The fact that this silliness is rife does not justify it in gifted scholar like Rankin. David S. Green, in Civil Society...., pub. , 2000, p40, wrote; "One of the urgent tasks of our time is to repair the damage caused by 1970s nihilism and to recover the use of a shared vocabulary" - Ed]

Later, Aidan promised me an article outlining his views on homosexuality, but he has not delivered. I will try to fill the gap by quoting from Green.


The Sexual Dead-End

- by Stephen Green,

pub. Broadview, sep1992

p1 ".... the head of a local human rights agency was asked on American television, just before a gay rights measure was debated, whether she thought there really was no moral difference between giving special protection to people who happened to be born black and giving special protection to those who had made a voluntary choice to commit sodomy with other men. 'Why' she announced, 'Gays would never do that!'" [S.G. quoting R G Magnusson]

p11 [Quotes survey of homosexuals by Ebbeson et al., "Sex Habits ....", Archives of Sexual Behaviour, vol. 13 no. 4, 1984, p294; "Of the 240 persons who provided information, 95% had been involved in anal intercourse ...." [See Ill Eagle 8, may00, p4]

Whereas on p92 he has 7% having had a fist up their rectum, on p93 the figure is 41%.

p101 "The rectal spincter of homosexuals who allow other men's penises, hands and arms into their anus gradually loses its ability to contain waste. The subject becomes incontinent and dribbles at inconvenient times .... a sanitary towel becomes a necessity .... 'fisting', which is the insertion of the fist or forearm into the rectum and colon was .... almost unknown in Kinsey's day .... 'fisting' causes, at a minimum, rectal trauma .... It can also rip the intestine .... and allow faecal matter into the abdominal cavity. Immediate surgery may prevent death."

[At this point Green does not mention that amyl nitrites, or poppers, are used to relax the spincter, which is much tighter than the vagina. Duesberg believes that since poppers are immuno-suppressant, they are the main cause of AIDS. Root-Bernstein's 1993 book gives further less serious immuno-suppressant aspects of the lifestyle of some homosexual communities .

In FYC ( ) bulletin no. 89, 1997, Dr. Stammers correctly interpreted Cameron et al. in  Omega, Journal of Death and Dying, vol29 no.3, 1994, as giving an expectation of life for gay men as a staggering 30 years less than that for normal men. Curiously, he has now backed away from his previous correct evaluation towards only 10 years or so shorter lifespan for gays. When a leading Gay attacked Chris Smith for wrongly saying in the Commons that one was born with it, saying that in fact one had a choice, he did not go on to say one could choose between life and death! - Ed]

p323 "Robert Bly has been difficult enough for the liberal media to understand and his thesis is already awkward for commentators to accept. Application of his work to the psychological deficiencies of homosexuals would tip him immediately into political incorrectness and obscurity.

"According to Robert Bly, there has been no coherent masculine response to feminism, which recognises only two types of man, its favourite Aunt Sally of macho-man, and the approved vulnerable new man. Bly asserts that the hard-drinking, womanising bully is most certainly not a valid role model for a man, but then neither is the wimpish - or 'soft' - new man, who throws out the baby of masculinity with the bath water of macho man."

p337 "The pro-gay stance of the unions was as a result of pressure from the National Council for Civil Liberties, which had since the mid seventies had its very own well established Lesbian and Gay Group. One Barry Prothero was appointed to be its full time gay rights officer in 1980, again inevitably during the tenure of Patricia Hewitt and Harriet Harman. ["Patricia Hewitt, General Secretary of the NCCL for the past seven years ...." - back cover of P Hewitt, The Abuse of Power, pub. Martin Robertson 1982] Mr. Prothero's qualifications for this post included being a member of the Gay Activists Alliance and having shared a home with Paul Crane, the 'gay' lawyer, Stephen Gee of the pro-paedophile Gay left and John Lloyd, co-founder of [pro paedophilia] Paedophile Action for Liberation.

[We see lesbian Bea working hard to smear heterosexual fathers with child sexual abuse, while at the same time she has a strong link via Hewitt and Harman (through Prothero, whom Hewitt appointed, and who lived with a paedophile) to pro-paedophilia activism by homosexuals! Bea sees the heterosexual males' main ambition (but not the Gays'!) as being to bugger. What does Prothero's flatmate Gee enjoy?  - Ed.]


When love fails

By Bettina Arndt, The Age (Melbourne) 4 August 2001

"Our darling Greg died of a broken heart," announced the death notice placed by his mother and sister when federal MP Greg Wilton killed himself last year.

Wilton's death attracted massive publicity, highlighting his marriage break-up and loss of his children as events precipitating his drastic action. Three weeks earlier, Wilton was found in a distressed state in a car with his two young children.

Wilton, 44, was well aware of the vulnerability of men in his situation. Three years earlier he gave a speech in parliament commenting on a report on youth suicide, pointing out that the group at greatest risk of killing themselves were adult men.

"From the extensive research (of) the last five years ... it becomes apparent men kill themselves due to an inability to cope with life events such as relationship break-ups of the kind (I) myself have suffered," said Wilton, whose first marriage had ended in divorce.

Each year in Australia, more than 1000 men aged 25-44 take their own lives. The rate of suicide among these adult males is more than twice the teenage (15-19) suicide rate.

While the male teenage suicide rate has been stable for the past decade, the rate for adult males has been rising since the 1970s. Most of them, like Greg Wilton, are casualties of family breakdown.

A Queensland study of 4000 suicides found more than 70 per cent were associated with a relationship break-up. The study, conducted by Professor Pierre Baume, who is now at Monash University, showed men were nine times more likely to take their lives following a break-up than women.

In the 1990s we spent more than $31 million on youth suicide prevention. Yet no federal suicide funds have been targeted at the males showing the most consistent rise in suicide rates. The plight of these men has only just made it on to the national agenda.

This month our peak suicide prevention body - the National Advisory Council on Suicide Prevention - for the first time is considering national initiatives addressing this risk group. A series of meetings is being held between state and federal suicide bodies, plus expert panels, to determine how to reach these men.

Professor Ian Webster, chairman of the council, names this group as the priority facing his committee. "It is a real problem for us. We are trying to determine how best to approach it. I don't feel that as yet we have any clear way of engaging with this risk group or deciding how to appeal to them."

Webster said his committee is likely to invite key research and interest groups to propose new initiatives, an invitation welcomed by Chris Cantor, a Queensland psychiatrist who has spent the past six years researching and writing journal articles drawing attention to the unmet needs of this risk group in suicide policies.

Cantor, who conducted some of his original research with Baume at Griffith University's Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, believes the link with relationship breakdown is critical.

His own research shows the risk of suicide is far higher for men in the period following marital separation - the suicide risk among separated men was 18 times that of separated women - but, after divorce, the rates for men declined to three times those of women.

Baume's data also points to the separation period as the critical risk time. "The real risk is within four to six weeks of the separation rather than after divorce. Men are most vulnerable immediately after rejection," he said.

Cantor questions whether the first weeks are so vital but feels this issue needs exploring. He would like, through the Family Court, to track families from the point of

Ill16 p8

separation through to six months post-divorce, with regular interviews of both parents and children to measure mental health, depression and suicidal tendencies.

From his previous research, Cantor suspects that loss of meaningful contact with children will emerge as a major risk factor for suicide. His research shows women with children are less likely to commit suicide than similarly aged women without children.

"It seems highly likely that most of the suicide problems associated with separated men may relate to child access problems. The research suggests that some non-custodial mothers may be in the same boat," he said.

Overseas, other researchers are reaching similar conclusions. Augustine Kposowa, associate professor of sociology at the University of California at Riverside, analysed data from the National Longitudinal Mortality Study and found the risk ratio for divorced men is 8.6 times the rate for divorced women. He, too, is convinced the key factor is men's loss of their children.

"Even with visitation rights, a man may not get to see his children. He's already experienced loss of love through the break-up of the relationship and then he faces the loss of his children. This drives some men, especially in the early stages of separation, to come to the conclusion that life is not worth living," said Kposowa, who is researching the role of the court system and loss of custody in the heightened suicide risk for divorced men.

Edward Kruk, social work professor at the University of British Columbia in Canada, has conducted research in both Britain and Canada on the impact of divorce on fathers.

He found that, after losing daily contact with their offspring, the fathers in his study passed through a grieving process similar to that of parents whose child has died - 61 per cent described mental health difficulties they had not experienced prior to the divorce, including suicidal tendencies.

Meanwhile, in Australia, an organisation supporting separated men is gathering data that demonstrates worrying suicidal tendencies in separated men. MENDS (Men Exploring New Directional Strategies) programs have been running for more than six years, recently with Commonwealth Government funding. Psychological evaluations of more than 500 men attending the programs show most of them fall into the highest risk category for "suicidality" - showing thinking processes and behavior known to precede suicide.

MENDS has evidence its programs - based on education and the group support provided by men sharing similar experiences - have a significant effect on suicide risk during the critical separation period.

But the problem is how to reach separated men who are floundering on their own.

The founder of MENDS, psychologist Owen Pershouse, believes he has a possible answer: "Between 30 and 40 per cent of calls we get following up publicity about MENDS come from women. They are mostly mothers, sisters, sometimes a work colleague or even the ex-wife. Women notice what's happening to men they care about. They are the ones to target."

Baume agrees that women may provide the key to reaching these troubled men. He believes the ultimate solution lies in long-term cultural change, teaching boys that it is not unmanly to express their feelings so separated men don't end up so isolated. But, given the reticence of the typical Australian male to admit he's in trouble, Baume believes the answer lies in harnessing the power of women to get men to talk to them.

Women like Alice. That's not her real name, but as the mother of a 23-year-old who has just attempted suicide, Alice naturally wants to avoid publicity. Her son is reeling from the loss of his two-year de facto relationship. The couple has a three-month-old baby.

"This girl is his whole life. He feels life isn't worth living without her and his new baby," said Alice, who luckily works in New South Wales community services and was able to quickly obtain good psychiatric help for her son. Her nervousness is increased by the fact that three years ago her son attempted to hang himself when his first major relationship came to an end.

Listening to this mother talk about her son's dependency on these two young women, one wonders how often broken relationships feature even in youth suicides, when young men suffer the loss of that first taste of intimacy after emotionally constrained years of male adolescence.

Clearly relationship breakdown isn't the whole story in the worrying increase in male suicide - there are numerous other relevant factors, such as substance abuse, mental illness, and unemployment. But given the evidence suggesting it could be a key factor, at least it offers policy makers somewhere to start.

What Baume, Cantor and Pershouse are suggesting is public campaigns drawing attention to the fact that recently separated men are high risk. If we can run youth suicide prevention campaigns encouraging young men to look after their mates, why can't we teach our community to watch out for men who have lost their families?

Cantor, who suggests workplace initiatives may be effective, believes these men may be an easier target than youth, being more mature and aware of their responsibilities to their families.

Bettina Arndt is a staff writer.


[Like Wilton, I was high profile Establishment (Sir Clive Sinclair had just given me £500,000 for my computer invention, to much media acclaim,)  when I divorced my wife. Six weeks later, to suddenly find myself a pariah, under attack by all arms of the Society that I had so recently been at the centre of (police, psychiatrists, social workers, lawyers, 'friends', all my relatives,) was traumatic. Although society's attack on young men and on fathers is similar in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, the situation is marginally worse in Canada and Australia. This explains why the first research into a taboo subject should be done, and should then even be published, in those two countries. As the crisis deepens, the censorship will finally fail. However, there are still some years and a lot of deaths to go first before these dreadful women like Stinko, Jay and Bea lose their grip on research funding and on the media. - Ed]


Widowers Benefit Changes

How to obtain more than the Act states

Sexual Discrimination over Death Benefits

        As from April 9th 2001 the law will change with the implementation of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, to the effect that widowers will become entitled to the same state benefits as do wives losing their husbands. Previously, men were denied these benefits, which amounted to clear sexual discrimination in gross contravention of Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

        However, whilst husbands losing their wives before the 9th April 2001, will, thereafter, receive the same benefits as do widows, they will not receive those benefits backdated to the date of death. SO THE UK GOVERNMENT REMAINS IN BREACH OF THE ECHR FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO APRIL 9TH 2001.

        The Government have demonstrated their readiness to hold up their hands to the charges in that they have offered privately to a number of widowers who have sued them in the European Court of Human Rights settlements that amount to payment in full backdated to the date of death.

        It would seem that the Government will provide the monies that widowers are entitled to under the ECHR, but only to those who are prepared to present an application to the European Court.

        Anyone wishing to consider pursuing a backdated claim can register at the web site



Feminisms, ed. Sandra Kemp and Judith Dquires, OUP 1997, p142

.... these feminst epistomological frameworks tend to share a critical stance in relation to rationality, objectivity, and universality, asserting the significance and legitimacy of emotional, politically engaged, and particularistic ways of knowing"


p9 was ad for ManKind 2001 conference, see


Only some of the Sloss slease from pp10, 11


Ill16 p12

Father Facts

From the internet on 29july01. For the full text, see

This is a nine page compendium of statistics on the outcome for children who are cut off from their father. The outcome is worse than for those children who are cut off from their mother. Many of the bad effects of cutting a child off from its father propagate down through later generations.

In the end, when the crisis has become grave, judges will bow to these statistics, and give up trying to make mother custody work. Having proven total incompetence in imposing shared parenting, they will switch to father custody. I hope that fathers with custody will behave better than mothers with custody have behaved.

  Sexual activity. In a study of 700 adolescents, researchers found that  "compared to families with two natural parents living in the home, adolescents from single-parent families have been found to engage in greater and earlier sexual activity." Source: Carol W. Metzler, et al.

  A myriad of maladies. Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

  Drinking problems. Teenagers living in single-parent households are more likely to abuse alcohol and at an earlier age compared to children reared in two-parent households. Source: Terry E. Duncan, Susan C. Duncan and Hyman Hops

  Drug Use: "...the absence of the father in the home affects significantly the behaviour of adolescents and results in the greater use of alcohol and marijuana." Source: Deane Scott Berman

  Sexual abuse. A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31% of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend. Source: Beverly Gomes-Schwartz, Jonathan Horowitz, and Albert P. Cardarelli

  Child Abuse. Researchers in Michigan determined that "49 percent of all child abuse cases are committed by single mothers." Source: Joan Ditson and Sharon Shay

  Deadly predictions. A family structure index -- a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed -- is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males. Source: Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C. Land

  High risk. Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

  Suicidal Tendencies. In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families. Source: David A. Brent, et al.

  Confused identities. Boys who grow up in father-absent homes are more likely that those in father-present homes to have trouble establishing appropriate sex roles and gender identity. Source: P.L. Adams, J.R. Milner, and N.A. Schrepf

  Psychiatric Problems. In 1988, a study of preschool children admitted to New Orleans hospitals as psychiatric patients over a 34-month period found that nearly 80 percent came from fatherless homes. Source: Jack Block, et al.

  Emotional distress. Children living with a never-married mother are more likely to have been treated for emotional problems   Source: L. Remez, "Children Who Don't Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems," Family Planning Perspectives (January/February 1992).

  Uncooperative kids. Children reared by a divorced or never-married mother are less cooperative and score lower on tests of intelligence than children reared in intact families. Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income.  Source: Greg L. Duncan, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Kato Klebanov

  Unstable families, unstable lives. Compared to peers in two-parent homes, black children in single-parent households are more likely to engage in troublesome behavior, and perform poorly in school. Source: Tom Luster and Hariette Pipes McAdoo

  Beyond class lines. Even controlling for variations across groups in parent education, race and other child and family factors, 18- to 22-year-olds from disrupted families were twice as likely to have poor relationships with their mothers and fathers, to show high levels of emotional distress or problem behavior, [and] to have received psychological help. Source: Nicholas Zill, Donna Morrison, and Mary Jo Coiro

  Fatherly influence. Children with fathers at home tend to do better in school, are less prone to depression and are more successful in relationships. Children from one-parent families achieve less and get into trouble more than children from two parent families. The Consortium for the Study of School Needs of Children from One Parent Families

  Divorce disorders. Children whose parents separate are significantly more likely to engage in early sexual activity, abuse drugs, and experience conduct and mood disorders. This effect is especially strong for children whose parents separated when they were five years old or younger. Source: David M. Fergusson, John Horwood and Michael T. Lynsky

  Troubled marriages, troubled kids. Compared to peers living with both biological parents, sons and daughters of divorced or separated parents exhibited significantly more conduct problems. Daughters of divorced or separated mothers evidenced significantly higher rates of internalizing problems, such as anxiety or depression. Source: Denise B. Kandel, Emily Rosenbaum and Kevin Chen

   Hungry for love. "Father hunger" often afflicts boys age one and two whose fathers are suddenly and permanently absent. Sleep disturbances, such as trouble falling asleep, nightmares, and night terrors frequently begin within one to three months after the father leaves home. Source: Alfred A. Messer

  Disturbing news: Children of never-married mothers are more than twice as likely to have been treated for an emotional or behavioral problem. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

  Poor and in trouble: A 1988 Department of Health and Human Services study found that at every income level except the very highest (over $50,000 a year), children living with never-married mothers were more likely than their counterparts in two-parent families to have been expelled or suspended from school, to display emotional problems, and to engage in antisocial behavior.   Source: James Q. Wilson

  Fatherless aggression: In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed "greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households." Source: N. Vaden-Kierman, N. Ialongo, J. Pearson, and S. Kellam

  Act now, pay later: "Children from mother-only families have less of an ability to delay gratification and poorer impulse control (that is, control over anger and sexual gratification.) These children also have a weaker sense of conscience or sense of right and wrong." Source: E.M. Hetherington and B. Martin

  Crazy victims: Eighty percent of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals come from broken homes. Source: J.B. Elshtain

The full bibliography, with full details on sources, is five times as long. See


p4; "The single most distinguishing feature of feminist scholarly work has been its overtly political nature, and feminism's commitment to material change has played a significant role in undermining traditional academic boundaries between the personal and political." - Feminisms, see our p8 endpiece.

Ill16 p13

From: Lakritz, Naomi < >

To: < >

From: Lakritz, Naomi < >

Date: 19 June 2001 15:37

Ivor:   Here is the column you wanted:

Happy Person Day, dads

Naomi Lakritz, Calgary Herald, 17june01

Happy Father's Day, dads. Would you like a tie or another pair of socks? You can have anything you like, as long as you don't ask to sit at the table with the other half of the human race. Recently, the National Association of Women and the Law, along with the Ontario Women's Network on Custody and Access, threw a hissy fit and said they will boycott the federal Justice Department's national consultations on custody legislation because - gasp! - they'd have to sit at the same table as fathers' rights groups.

What are they afraid of - that the guys might burp or scratch themselves in some inappropriate place?If only it were that simple. Instead, the phrase "fathers' rights" is an oxymoron to people like OWNCA member Ghislaine Siroris who complains that if men are included in the seating arrangement, it doesn't demonstrate a clear commitment to women's equality.

It would be nice if the strident feminist element would make up its mind once and for all whether biology is destiny.

They'll lobby long and loud for a national day-care system because professional carers are better than moms any day, but when it comes to child custody, suddenly their view is that nobody can do it better than mom. Seems biology is indeed destiny, but only when it suits their purposes.

The women also objected to the "gender-neutral" language in the Justice Department documents that had been prepared for the hearings.

Didn't they just spend three decades emasculating the English lexicon and forcing everyone to convert to "chairperson," "spokesperson" and "personhole cover" on pain of being carted off for sensitivity re-education? And now that they've gelded the grammar as systematically as a farmer might a litter of piglets, they're still not happy. Oh, brother. Oops. Oh, sibling.

Much as these women would love to think they can reproduce by parthenogenesis and grow a child from an unfertilized egg, they can't. Much as some obviously believe it would be far more efficient to cuddle up to a turkey baster than to acknowledge that men's role in parenting is larger than just providing sperm, they can't do that, either.

When women like these set out to carve up the language into person-words, they also tinkered with meanings. Equality now means whatever gives them an edge over the guys and women's rights are synonymous with a self-serving agenda that is strikingly similar to the one they accuse men of using for thousands of years to oppress women.

"Women's organizations believe the outcome of this consultation will jeopardize the rights and safety of women and children," yaps NAWL spokesperson Bonnie Diamond.

Maybe her organization should change its name to the National Association of Women ARE the Law since that appears to be their premise.

Is there a species on the planet more unjustly maligned than fathers? Used-car salesmen get a better rap than dads do. Fathers are abusers, bullies, deadbeats, child molesters and all-around sexist clods who have a lot of gall wanting a relationship with their children once the initial moment of conception is over.

If these matriarchy-uber-alles groups want to boycott, girlcott or personcott the public consultations, then the hearings should get underway without them.

Why bother coaxing these crybabies back to the fold when all they have to say on the serious issue of changes to the federal Divorce Act is "gimme"?

These organizations speak only for themselves. They certainly do not speak for those of us who will have no ties to gift-wrap this Father's Day because the hard-working, decent, honourable guys who were our dads have passed away. We will not allow them to be insulted.

Pull up a chair, all you fathers, and join in the debate. You have every right to be there.


Falsely accused pair win judgment

- Valerie Richardson,

Washington Times, 4aug01

Six years after a police child-sex-ring investigation spread terror through the rural apple-picking community of Wenatchee, Wash., those wrongly accused of holding satanic rituals involving rape and molestation are finally starting to see the money.

On Tuesday, a Spokane County jury awarded $3 million to a Wenatchee couple, Honnah and Jonathan Sims, caught up in the now-discredited sex-ring allegations. The award is the largest to date in a case that has been compared to the Salem witch trials of the 17th century....

The latest award brings to about $6 million court-ordered damages stemming from lawsuits brought so far by dozens of plaintiffs seeking to clear their names and pin the blame on the Wenatchee police department, the Douglas County Sheriff's Office and the state Child Protective Services.

The Wenatchee case is considered the largest of several child-sex-abuse investigations since 1980 that have since been found to be based on coerced testimony from children. The jury foreman in one Wenatchee trial called the probe a "witch hunt," and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer described it as a "thoroughly discredited investigation."

Still, winning monetary damages hasn't been easy, even for those who spent years in prison on false charges and saw their children placed in foster care. Before the Simses could win the award, they first had to change state law....

"She [Honnah Sims] was scared. She didn't know when she was going to be arrested, and people all around here were being arrested," said Mrs. Hrycenko. "She shipped her child to live in Kansas so the Child Protective Services wouldn't take him. Then she went to jail and was strip-searched, and we didn't feel that was appropriate." ....

Most of the accused were women. Many were poor and uneducated, and a few were considered mentally handicapped. Many saw their children placed in foster care or sent them out of the state to avoid having them taken away by authorities. All of the accused have since been freed from jail, either because they were acquitted by juries or because they agreed to plead to lesser, unrelated charges in order to win release quickly.

The urgency of the case led to the creation of Innocence Project Northwest, a pro bono, legal-aid organization begun by lawyers and students at the University of Washington Law School. Lawyers affiliated with the project were instrumental in winning the release of many Wenatchee clients.

Representatives for the city and county could not be reached for comment.                   Full text at   Also see

Domestic violence more likely from women - report

By Padraig O'Morain, Health and Children Correspondent

Women are more likely than men to perpetrate domestic violence, according to new research on Irish couples who seek marriage counselling.

The report, published yesterday, also found that domestic violence was one of the less important factors in marriage breakdown in the largely middleclass group studied.

It was produced by a team led by Dr Kieran McKeown, who has a distinguished reputation in social research and was commissioned by Marriage and Relationship Counselling Services, one of the main counselling organisations in the country.

In a survey of 530 clients of MRCS, the researchers found domestic violence occurs in almost half (48 per cent) of all relationships which are sufficiently troubled for one or both partners to seek counselling.

Where there is violence, about one-third (33 per cent) inflict violence on each other, "while female-perpetrated violence occurs in about four out of 10 couples (41 per cent) and male-perpetrated violence in a quarter of couples (26

Ill16 p14

per cent) leading us to conclude that women are more likely than men to be the perpetrators of domestic violence", the report's authors say.

They say the findings "do not tell us anything about the severity of the violence involved, the context, reasons or initiation of the violence or the extent of injuries resulting from it".

They cite research from the US, Britain, Canada and New Zealand which, they say, shows that the "prevalence of domestic violence among men and women, both as victims and as perpetrators, is broadly similar for all types of violence, both psychological and physical, minor and severe. In addition, both men and women are about equally likely to initiate domestic violence and seem to give broadly similar reasons for doing so.

"However, it needs to be emphasised that the outcomes of domestic violence in terms of physical and psychological injuries tend to be considerably more negative for female victims than for male," they add.

International studies suggest "domestic violence probably occurs in about 10 to 20 per cent of all heterosexual relationships - with considerably higher prevalence rates for younger cohabiting couples - and tends to be severe in about one-third of all cases".


Dear Padraig

A few words from Amen re the MRCS study as discussed on the telephone this evening. ....

These findings come as no surprise to those of us who work in Amen and vindicate what we have been saying for the past three and a half years. In the light of these findings there is an urgent need to radically reform public policy in relation to domestic abuse and to provide the same level of support and services for male victims of domestic abuse as is provided for female victims of domestic abuse.

Public policy is predicated on the premise that women are the only victims of domestic abuse. Other than the services voluntarily provided by Amen there are virtually no other supports for men and their children who are suffering at the hands of violent and abusive women.

The findings of the survey of over five hundred clients of the MRCS, namely that women are more likely to perpetrate domestic abuse, concur with all reputable studies in other countries.

Let us now move to a platform where we can examine the dynamics of domestic abuse in a more sophisticated way instead of the crude gender-based paradigm which currently depicts men as devils and women as angels.

Mary T. Cleary

Co-ordinator, Amen (Eire)

086 6013448


...and in the home, the gender gulf is highlighted by a new study - though it's not all doom and gloom

Home truths for middle-class marriage

Sunday Independent, 17june01

A new survey shows women more likely to initiate violence than men, but it's the survival of the marriage that most concerns those seeking help, writes Patricia Redlich

Wives can be violent too. In fact, women are more likely than men to instigate domestic violence, at least in troubled, middle-class marriages, according to research on couples seeking marital counselling.

But that violence is not what concerns them most. The real damage to the relationship is done by criticism, insults, failure to listen, and, particularly on the part of men, avoidance of conflict, either by walking away or blowing up.

Social researcher Dr Kieran McKeown surveyed 530 clients of the Marriage and Relationship Counselling Service, one of the main counselling organisations in Ireland.

The majority of these clients came as couples, but a sizeable minority, namely four out of 10, were individual partners, mostly women, seeking help with an unhappy marriage. They were generally in their late 30s, married around 13 years, had children under 11, were financially secure, often dual earners. The men tended to work long hours, and the couples were not only unhappy but seriously stressed.

Marital unhappiness, it seems, is vastly more stressful than unemployment or poverty.

Violence was part of the disharmony in around half the marriages.  In four out of 10 cases, the woman assaulted her husband, in three out of 10 cases they assaulted each other and in 2.5 out of 10 cases the men were the aggressors.

But all the couples argued that the violence was not the issue. Nor was unfaithfulness, which occurred in one in three of the troubled marriages.  Unfaithfulness was more likely to be a husband's prerogative, though not exclusively so, and was almost invariably known to his wife. That said, when women did stray, they were better at hiding it.

There was widespread dissatisfaction expressed by women seeking help about the sharing of housework and childcare. But when these were investigated, the level of dissatisfaction bore no relationship to the actual amount of help that husbands gave. Which suggests that housework and childcare have replaced sex and money as the symbolic arena for marital battles.

That's what modern, well-heeled, unhappy couples fight about.  But just like sex and money, it's not the issue.

Criticism, particularly by wives; insults; not listening to one's partner; and refusal, usually by husbands, to discuss problems, affected nine out of 10 who attended counselling and it was these issues which pained couples most. For such behaviour sets up a seriously destructive and alienating pattern of non-communication, described by the researchers as the "demand-withdrawal" syndrome.

The typical scenario is one where a wife uses criticism as a means of demanding change. Her husband then withdraws and either ignores the demand or responds with angry confrontation. All this might be all right except for two crucial factors. Men can't handle criticism, not because they're nasty but because they are vulnerable.

And women can't handle either withdrawal or confrontation. For they want closeness and togetherness.

Laid out like that, it sounds like women start the spiral into unhappiness.

But that's not necessarily the case. Often what happens is that women see problems earlier because they are less likely to avoid emotional issues.

Men's avoidance behaviour, in other words, is not ignited by their wives, but part and parcel of their emotional baggage, or their emotional make-up, depending on your point of view.  This, however, should not be confused with a lack of commitment. "Men are less distressed and more committed to their relationships," the report found.

And women, as either part of their emotional baggage, or their almost biological make-up, seem to be more affected by marital problems than men.  They take them more seriously, find them more distressing, feel driven to fix them. The "demand-withdrawal" scenario, in other words, is the classic chicken and egg dilemma, the task of counselling not to apportion blame but to help clients cut through the vicious circle.

In simple terms that means she has to stop criticising and he has to stop avoiding.

Counselling, it seems, can help, although for details on counselling outcome in this Irish survey, we have to wait for the next stage of this report.

International research, however, shows that the clients, rather than the counsellors, are the ones who determine whether counselling is effective or not.  It is the strength of the couple, rather than the skill, or theoretical orientation, of the counsellor which ultimately decides on the fate of a marriage.

"Good counsellors, therefore, built upon the existing strengths and resilience of the couple, and, above all, restore faith and hope in the couple's own capacity to overcome their problems," the report concludes.

Such faith and hope are not misplaced. For love is alive and well: the fact that couples are seeking help is as much testimony to this as any statistic about happy marriages.


(pto) On the surprising results of research into domestic violence

Ill16 p15

The two sides of domestic violence

Brenda power, The Sunday Tribune, 17june01

THERE'S a women's refuge close to where I live and I pass it several times a week - from the top deck of the bus you can see in over the barbed wire-topped walls to a colourful playground in the garden of the large, fortressed building.  In such a grey and ominous setting it is a rather poignant sight, as is the occasional glimpse of young children in school uniforms trotting up to the heavy doors of the refuge to ring the bell and wait for admission.

These reminders of the purpose of the building, of the misery and disruption and mundane concerns of families sundered by domestic violence - kids still need somewhere to play, schoolwork still goes on - never fail to pull me up short.  That refuge is a very uncompromising monument to a truism that is as unshakeably rooted in the national consciousness as the foundations of that big grey building on the main street of a busy suburban village.  Men are violent, women and children are their innocent victims.

I've never heard any man I know express discomfort at the sight of it, even though I imagine that women would be far quicker to voice resentment if evidence of the bad behaviour of a few of their sex was so baldly advertised in a very public place. I can't quite see a refuge for battered husbands openly operating between the gourmet shops and the bistros of a fashionable suburb. And yet men certainly flee violent homes, and new research on troubled marriages last week revealed that women are almost twice as likely to initiate domestic violence as their partners.

It's just that men are slower to challenge stereotypes about themselves, less vigilant than women in confronting images that demean and undermine them.  It may be that they fear appearing weak if they keep on carping about sexist notions and perceptions, that the idea of a battered husband is just too humiliating for many men to stomach, that it seems a waste of time to battle against the consensus that casts men as aggressive, crude sexual predators when it's so firmly established as an everyday reality that a battered women's refuge rarely merits a second glance.

But in not challenging these stereotypes, in failing to be dismayed by the sight of such a sorry building and in neglecting to highlight the reality of domestic violence, they are simply providing comfort for the few men who are guilty on all counts.

The most remarkable thing about the research on domestic violence, was that it was not commissioned by some support group for lone fathers or men in violent relationships. It would certainly have been trashed and denounced as hysterical sexist if it did, though, so it's probably just as well that the figures came from a distinguished research team commissioned by the Marriage and relationship Counselling Services to study Irish couples seeking marriage counselling.  The research found that violence occurs in almost half of all relationships which are troubled to the point where the parties seek counselling, and of that violence, 41% was initiated by the women, compared to 26% by the men.  It's not as if we're talking about a few percentage points either way - the gap is so huge that it can't have gone unrecorded by the various third parties dealing with incidences of domestic abuse over the years, like doctors, Gardai, counsellors, lawyers.

But any time the suggestion of female violence has arisen in the past it was swiftly shot down by groups working with abused women and children, and they always point out that, whoever starts it, the consequences of domestic aggression are still more serious for women than for men.  Nevertheless, these figures shift a significant element of the control, if not the blame, for domestic violence onto some of the women involved.  You don't need to be a crack psychologist to predict that if a man is struck, however feebly, his first instinct is to strike back - just look at the footage of John Prescott versus Egg-Throwing Lout - and that instinct will be all the harder to control if he's got drink on him.

Yet all the wisdom on domestic violence, all those harrowing Christmastime ads with voiceovers of brutish exchanges, all insist that the man is inevitably the unprovoked aggressor and, even though these new statistics suggest they've always had ample basis to challenge this perception, men are slow to tackle it.

They are also much slower than women to tackle negative and demeaning images in advertising, which again, perpetuate a particularly condescending and unhealthy view of relationships between men and women.  I can't remember which washing powder runs that nasty ad about the poor chap who comes in from working in the garden and is forced to strip on the kitchen floor in front of his wife's sniggering chum, while the two women giggle over a smutty innuendo about his physical attributes, but I wouldn't buy it if I could - not, at least, until the same advertiser runs a similar campaign featuring men making crude jokes about a vulnerable women's body, of which there is a fat chance.  They'd be swamped under a barrage of complaints and chastised by the Advertising Standards Authority, but nobody gets particularly exercised when the object of ridicule is a man.

Even the sexual harassment legislation, much in the news these days, is arguably another product of unchallenged presumptions about male and female roles.  Whatever the rights and wrongs of the topical matter, a man's career has been destroyed and he will be forever tainted with the stigma of 'sex pest', when a far more equitable framing of the law would just outlaw bullying, harassment and abuse of power, regardless of the gender of the parties involved, and leave any element of a sexual threat, to the proper jurisdiction of the criminal courts.  But 'sexual harassment' is implicitly a transaction in which the male is the perpetrator and the woman the victim, since it'd be a rare and brave man who'd take such a case against a female employer.

It will be interesting to see the fall-out from those domestic violence statistics.  They are striking enough to suggest that some interest groups [Paedophiles, Stinko, Margaret Jay, Mayor Livingstone, Bea Campbell, MacKinnon, Dworkin, gays and lesbians, radfems] have been capitalising on the enemy's reticence and promoting a version of events that suits their purpose, which does nobody any great service. If women are truly responsible for instigating most domestic incidents, even if they then come out the worst of it, this must be honestly explored if the problem is to be tackled, and not just covered up because the men are too dispirited to protest.

[This is a first in two ways. 1. Woman journalists round the world have taken the Eire research figures as valid. This is what was needed, from women, for them to retain our respect. 2. The last paragraph above is the first time a woman journalist has suggested an evolved conspiracy by man-hating radfems and others to smear men in general using false statistics like Stinko's. However, one swallow doesn't make a spring. Many young men still have to die.

"Thanks to their conniving with radfems, women are at the Last Chance Saloon in their quest to save parity of esteem, carefully constructed over centuries, now to be lost for a long time. One Melanie Phillips, one Erin Pizzey, one Senator Anne C. Cools and one Patricia Morgan cannot save the respect that women are losing. -  Ill Eagle 9     June00       - Ed]


Results of previous violence research suppressed by radfems in Eire govt

Full text at

From: Roger Eldridge; This is strong talk but never underestimate the people in power. In Ireland here after the second very successful World Conference on Domestic Violence hosted by Amen ( ) the Department of Justice initiated a similar research project to enquire into the true nature and extent of domestic violence in the Western societies.

That report was presented to the Minister last June. It is now 12 months since he received it and no word has emerged of its contents other than to say (not unlike what has happened in Canada; do these people keep in touch?) that there would be a period of 'internal' consultation.

One suspects that the results offer such a condemnation of the policies that the government have followed that it is taking a long time to come up with a good excuse for having ruined so many lives in the past and (one suspects) wanting to continue without any significant change into the future.

Roger Eldridge,  Co. Roscommon, Ireland,


Ill16 p16

The Battle for Men's Rights in Scotland

By ManKind member Douglas Rome <

Full text at

Dumfries, Scotland

Embattled men in Scotland have won crucial new rights in the teeth of bitter opposition from the Scottish matriarchy. The Scottish Executive - the new devolved government in Scotland - has started an inquiry into women's violence against men.

For decades, feminists have insisted that domestic violence is inflicted exclusively by men on women. Now, after unrelenting pressure by the men's movement, the Executive has been forced to concede otherwise. Announcing the inquiry to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, the social justice minister (and feminist ) Jackie Baillie said (through gritted teeth) that the results should be known by early next year....

It is not known yet who will lead the probe or how far-ranging its research will be; but campaigners for men's rights have made it clear that if the inquiry team works to a brief dictated by the feminist agenda, they will not accept its (predictable) conclusions....

Also see


Some dads wronged by paternity laws, critics say

- Penny Owen, Staff Writer, The Oklahoman, 5aug01

.... a man learned he had a son eight years after the boy was born. After $15,000 in legal bills and another $20,000 paid in a child support settlement, the father and his current wife say they have yet to meet the boy, now 22.

Or the case in Anadarko, where an Army retiree learned that he wasn't the father of the girl he had raised for 10 years. The news didn't come until the girl turned 17. But that didn't exempt him from owing $23,000 in back child support.

Nor has child support been stopped for a man in Atlanta, who said he learned he wasn't the father of the daughter he had raised. Fed up with the system and realizing he wasn't alone, Carnell Smith started a Web-based support group, Citizens for Paternity Fraud ( ).

The site is geared for fathers who feel wronged when it comes to support for a child they either thought was theirs and learned otherwise or who never knew the child existed.

Interestingly, some of the biggest advocates of changing child support laws are the current wives of the fathers they say are victimized. These women say their pocketbooks, livelihood and own children suffer because of unfair or antiquated laws that favor mothers who, as one put it, connive to "change fathers in midstream," depending on who can pay.

In Oklahoma, a bill pending in the House of Representatives proposes new, more father-friendly legislation that would help both men who learn they are fathers years after the fact and those who learn they are not.

House Bill 1077 is authored by state Rep. Lloyd Fields, D-McAlester, who personally was ordered in 1997 to pay $26,000 in back child support after a messy and drawn-out battle involving a daughter and divorce.

The bill, in essence, would allow any man to challenge paying child support if a paternity test proved he wasn't the biological father. As the law stands now, a husband who has served as father to a child in a marriage for two or more years is liable for child support, even if the parents divorce and a paternity test proves he isn't the father.

That part was inspired by state Rep. Jim Glover, D-Elgin, who said he was contacted by a man in his district who was being forced to pay child support on two children, even though paternity tests proved he wasn't the father.

The reason he remained obligated, Glover said, was because he was married to the mother and put his name on the birth certificates. Unless the law changes, he will pay child support until the children turn 18, Glover said. The mother is now living with the biological father.

"If you're not the father, why should you pay child support? There's just nothing fair about it," said Glover, who added that HB 1077 passed in the House twice, but was killed in Senate committee.

The bill also would not force a man to pay back child support for a child he never knew existed. As it is now, said Ray Weaver, the director of child support enforcement for the state Department of Human Services, anyone found to be the father of a child, even if he didn't know it, can be liable for child support up to five years before the discovery.

The whole issue of child support, paternity and liability is a mess at best, and each case has its differences and complications. One side, loaded with women as well as men, complain of mothers who trick men into fatherhood while knowing they aren't the fathers. The other side argues that families come first and scientific findings shouldn't destroy a child's understanding of who its parents are.

Paternity testing is now highly accurate - and 28 percent of the men tested for fatherhood in 1999 and 2000 were proven not to be the father, according to the American Association of Blood Banks and Oklahoma's human services department.

Some, like Norvell Gattison, didn't learn until years after the fact - 17, to be exact.

Gattison's wife said her husband married the mother of a 2-year-old girl because he was told he was the father. They divorced when the girl turned 12, and the relationship with his ex-wife deteriorated further. In the end, Gattison owed $23,000 in back child support, which is being garnished from his Army retirement check.

More painful, however, was learning the truth.

Gattison's wife, Marilyn, said the mother blurted out the truth when the daughter was 17, prompting Gattison to take a paternity test. Both father and daughter were there when the letter arrived with the results.

"I opened the letter and looked at him and said 'You're  not the father,'" Marilyn Gattison said. "And they both started crying. It really hurt both of them."

The father-daughter relationship has since been damaged because of subsequent fights over child support between Gattison and his ex-wife.

At least Gattison had some relationship with his daughter - unlike the husband of Pat Conrady of Fairview, who learned he had a son after an old girlfriend's husband was arrested for child molestation and thrown in prison.

Conrady said when the mother applied for social assistance, she named her husband as the father. He then got a bill for back child support. When he said he wanted to meet the son he never knew, Conrady said the mother disappeared, only to reappear years later, again wanting back support.

They nearly went bankrupt fighting the case and finally gave in by agreeing to a $20,000 settlement - which, with legal bills and all, ate up their own childrens' college fund and put them in debt.

To say Conrady is bitter is an understatement, and she knows she's not alone.

"They write him off with this other child as a deadbeat father and it's not like that. He never had a chance to be a father," said Conrady, who described her husband as a devoted husband and provider with the same job for 22 years, who always supported the children he knew he had.

She says her husband willingly would have supported the new-found son as well, had he been able to develop a relationship with him.

"They're destroying other kids and other marriages just to get money for these women whose marriages didn't work out and who want to change fathers in midstream," Pat Conrady said. "Our kids are all out of the house now, and we should be at the point where we can travel and enjoy life a little bit, and we can't because we have this debt to pay off."

On the other side of the argument are those who say the past is simply catching up with men who knowingly took a risk, however long ago.

"That part, 'I didn't have any idea I was the father' bothers me a little bit," said Weaver of DHS. "Everyone knows how children are conceived.  And if you don't remember conceiving a child, I don't think it's harmful to society to have a genetic test to remind you that you did conceive a child."

Weaver also pointed out that recent legislation has tried to get absentee fathers more involved in their children's lives by such things as providing work retraining for those who can't afford child support. Studies have shown that the more fathers are involved in their children's lives, the more likely they are to pay support.

Some, however, say legislation is too little too late. Gattison, the Army retiree, lost his commercial driver's license, private investigator license and fishing license because he owes back child support. No doubt laws have cracked down on so-called deadbeat parents.

More than just the fathers are affected, too.

Strapped for cash because her husband couldn't work, Marilyn Gattison said she applied for food stamps - and was turned down because of the back support owed.

"I said, 'You're telling me I have to tell my husband to leave the home in order for me and my child to eat?'" Marilyn Gattison said. "I'm just having a hard time. I don't know what law can make a man pay for a child that's not his. And if DHS has all these resources, why can't they go after the real father?

"The sad part about it was, when me and him got married, we decide to adopt a child - and now we can barely afford it."

Also see

Ill16 p17

The Christian Science Monitor

Opinion:  Letters

Wednesday, July, 25, 2001

Fearing divorce, men eschew marriage

The July 17 article "Vow or never," was interesting, but failed to point at the principal reason there are so few marriages. Men are becoming increasingly aware that they have no rights at all in marriage - nothing, just responsibility, responsibilities that will continue after their wives divorce them, which they are very likely to do.

Men don't want to raise and love children, only to have them stolen away, along with their financial capability of having a reasonable life or indeed any chance of ever having children again....

Alan Carr, Chelmsford, England


System failure

Julie Wheelwright, Guardian, 9may01

If you can't agree with your ex about custody and access, a complete stranger will decide what's best for your kids. The government is investing in a new family court service, but will it make any differenc

You're a mother with young children and your marriage has broken down. The  children live with you and see their father regularly, but your ex-husband, on the recommendation of a family solicitor, has issued an application for residence. As the date for your hearing looms, a teacher at your son's nursery remarks, as casually as she can, "I received a letter this morning from the probation service about your child." You thought this process was within your understanding but, at that moment, you realise that nothing has prepared you for this. Soon after, the court welfare officer (CWO) charged with making an independent assessment of your children visits your home. You are on a knife-edge - this complete stranger, a criminal probation officer with no guarantee of specialist training with children, holds the future of your family life in his hands. He alone will recommend to the courts how often you see your children, where they live and with whom they spend their holidays. In the majority of cases, the CWO's recommendations are accepted.

Before you appear in court, you will be under enormous pressure to reach an agreement - a form of negotiating that puts a premium on compromise for its own sake, while the children's best interests run a poor second. If you come before a judge, he will be free to make whatever recommendations and whatever personal comments about your appearance, behaviour or parenting he sees fit. Finally, if the judge decides not to uphold the plans for your children that you have fought for, costs may be awarded against you. There are no guidelines for contact, no way to appeal against decisions and no proper system for complaints. There are countless such stories from parents throughout the country of disagreements that result in either one parent having limited or no access to their child or a vindictive ex-partner continuing needless legal proceedings. If it isn't every parent's nightmare, it ought to be. Approximately 70,000 children a year are put through a system which one campaigner, Oliver Cyriax (a solicitor and writer who represents Information on Probation Officers in Welfare Work), has described as "rotten to the core".

But now the government has created a new body with a £72m budget to take over all responsibilities relating to the welfare of children and families in courts. Earlier this year, there was welcome acknowledgment from Lady Justice Butler-Sloss, president of the high court's family division, that the old system needed reform. "It's very important for the families to make [the new organisation] work," she told the Family Law Bar Association, "and to have the chance to have an infinitely better system than we have had." The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass), which came into existence on April 1, is poised to overhaul the whole process for families in dispute. Or is it? A Day-Glo orange sign provides a lurid welcome to Cafcass's sparkling offices in London's Victoria. But the fact that Anthony Hewson, the organisation's chairman, has agreed to meet me is a step towards dismantling the secrecy that surrounded the old Family Court Welfare Service (FCWS). "We are confident that we can make a difference to families and children," he says. "Families are important, courts are important, but children are our primary focus. This country doesn't have a very good reputation for listening to children." He explains that Cafcass has been in touch with the NSPCC and NCH Action for Children; there may be forums for children in future, and he admits there is a need for better research about how to minimise the trauma of a breakup for them. This information might form a basis for changes that would feed directly into how the newly renamed "court and family reporters" (who replace CWOs) go about their job. Diane Shepherd, chief executive of Cafcass, says the organisation has a team working with "stakeholders" to draft new national standards.

"We'll come to our own views about whether a lot of these systems and procedures that envelop people's lives are in the child's best interests," says Hewson. "I'm quite sure they'll discover that some of them are not."

Among ideas to deter separating parents from taking their disputes to court, Hewson is investigating US schemes where parents are shown a video about the likely impact upon their children. "If we provide a better way of hearing children's views, then perhaps parents will think more carefully about whether they are going to march into adversarial activity." He also mentions a joint initiative by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Legal Services Commission, due to start in October, designed to encourage mediation and counselling as alternatives to legal action.

Another innovation would be guidelines for child-parent contact, since there are wide variations: from non-resident parents who never see their children to those who have alternate weekend contact with half of all holidays and midweek overnights. Changing the culture within the probation service may therefore prove a Herculean task. David Lye, the former Cafcass project director, wrote a letter to Welsh Assembly minister Owen John Thomas earlier this year in which he admitted: "The services that provide advice to the courts have always resisted [guidelines] on the grounds that each case involves different circumstances and unique individuals." But without guidelines, many parents and campaigners believe that there is endless potential for dispute over the degree and circumstances of contact.

Although Hewson's proposals are potentially good news, many parents are understandably cynical about how much will really change. "These disputes are exacerbated by the existing system and those in the system never listen to parents who come to them for help," says Scott Bradfield, an academic who brought a complaint against the FCWS in 1999. Diane Shephard insists that Cafcass is open to parents' views, but Bradfield is not convinced. During a Cafcass internet chat in early April, he says, some messages from parents were blocked: "Any criticism of the service was prevented from being aired."

Dina Rabinovitch, a writer who gained unprecedented access to the family judges and courts, says that honest CWOs admit their job is virtually unworkable. "An adult whom the children have never met goes into a room and asks these children, at a complicated time in their lives, questions about 'Mummy's house' and 'Daddy's house', and then writes a report which purports to represent those children's views. Anyone who has children knows that getting an accurate picture of children's feelings is a subtle business - and, in fact, may not be anybody's business at all, at this intensely private time for children."

For Rabinovitch, the adversarial court system will never be the right place for these issues. As Kate Green, chair of National Council for One Parent Families points out, mothers often end up making compromises over contact arrangements simply to prevent costly and painful legal action. Green adds that Cafcass should spend part of its research budget on investigating what arrangements work best and how conflict might be minimised.

"What we are all aware of," says Green, "is that, where there is a relationship with a lot of conflict, that will continue after a break-up, and the family needs support at every stage."

Meanwhile, at the Cafcass offices, Anthony Hewson contemplates the

Ill16 p18

challenge that he faces in bringing credibility to a system that, according to its critics, such as Tony Coe of the Equal Parenting Council, has blighted a generation of families. "I think Cafcass is only a new sign over the door of the old service," he says. "But the glimmer of light is Anthony Hewson."


[mid july01]

The 'friends' on the Left are to blame for Bradford

By Sin Simon (Electronic Telegraph)

  News: We were overwhelmed say Bradford riot police

It is fitting to begin, in seeking explanation for what's been happening in the mill towns of the North, with E P Thompson's Making of the English Working Class. That great masterpiece hums with the early industrial life of the very places now plunged into convulsions. Bradford, Burnley, Oldham and Leeds have 71 page references between them. Yet the following distinction drawn by Prof Thompson in his passage dealing with riots remains pertinent today:

"In 18th-century Britain riotous actions assumed two different forms: that of more or less spontaneous popular direct action; and that of the deliberate use of the crowd as an instrument of pressure, by persons 'above' or apart from the crowd." As a revisionist Left-winger writing in 1959-63, Thompson's thesis was that historians had too often favoured the latter interpretation of riots, thereby devaluing the notion of the riot as a positive response to working-class disfranchisement, poverty and alienation.

Forty years later, the positions have reversed. The general assumption of the liberal establishment is that riots must necessarily be an outpouring of tensions so seethingly underlying that they were always bound eventually to boil over. My first premise is that this is not true here: the recent events have tended to be caused by the cynical intervention of outsiders, and would not have occurred were it not for that manipulation. True, "you can't agitate a man on a full stomach"; it is no coincidence that these riots were in Manningham not Mayfair; but that was neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition.

My second point is one that has been neglected by the media: the most effective agents provocateurs have not been the neo-Nazi Right but the revolutionary Trotskyist Left. I know this for sure because what they succeeded in doing in Bradford on Saturday and elsewhere in previous weeks, they failed to do in my constituency on the final Saturday of the general election campaign.

A seemingly innocuous sentence from the front page of yesterday's Observer (one similar to which was carried by the rest of the media) conceals the sinister truth: "Two people were stabbed and 80 police officers injured after a protest march against the National Front turned violent." Not by the National Front, you will note, but against it.

Decent people, reading such a sentence, may fail properly to examine what it means. They might well assume that concerned citizens naturally want to march against the National Front, that the phenomenon is similar to the food riots of the late 18th and early 19th century which, according to Thompson, were "legitimised by the assumptions of an older moral economy", being "popularly regarded as acts of justice, and their leaders held as heroes".

What happened in Erdington, in which a National Front and a Trotskyist Socialist Alliance candidate were standing, was that the National Front initially threatened to march down the High Street. Local reaction was so uniformly appalled that the threat was withdrawn. However, the local Anti-Nazi League - exactly the same handful of militants who made up the Trotskyist Socialist Alliance, but with a different letterhead - absolutely refused to cancel its planned "counter-demonstration". It was now to be a "celebration" that the streets had been reclaimed from the fascists.

And on the day that the NF march was supposed to have taken place it was the ANL, not NF, supporters who poured in from outside wearing balacavas and frightening people. It was against them that the shops pulled down their shutters and the riot police lurked warily. Fortunately, the NF was nowhere to be seen, so there was no one for the Trotskyists to fight, and there are greatly fewer young Asians to be incited in Erdington than there are in Bradford so, after a while, the militants left.

Given that the recent riots have been such a fillip for the neo-Nazis - giving them publicity, exciting fear and xenophobia and thus promoting the recruitment which is their prime objective - one might have thought the supposed anti-Nazis would recognise their own leading role in bringing it about as counterproductive. Such thinking ignores the ruthlessness of revolutionary socialists. For them, there is no difference between the proto-fascist skinhead youth and the Bangladeshi militant: there is only one working class, only one class struggle. Cities on fire. Police under siege. Oppressed urban proletariat rises up against the agents of the boss class. They love it.

Which is sickening, because the only way they can get these mini-revolutionary kicks is by cynically playing the race card. After all, they constantly invite people to meet, march, protest and generally overthrow the decadent institutions of capitalism. And they are constantly, roundly and spectacularly ignored. In Erdington, after fighting a vigorous and vocal campaign, they polled less than the National Front, which fought no campaign at all. (Neither got 700 votes.)

The only way the revolutionary Trotskyists can get a response is to go into Asian communities and frighten people with the spectre of neo-Nazism. And in so doing, the Trotskyists - deliberately and for their own purposes - give the fascists a credibility they don't deserve. Yes, the NF "starts it" by turning up in Asian communities. But the Trotskyists are the catalyst without which these terrible conflagrations would not occur.

The NF is a pathetic and puny group of stupid and cowardly hooligans rarely capable of more than getting drunk, shouting idle threats and scuttling away. They're so disgusting, on the other hand, that their mere existence in the pub around the corner is bound to inflame the passions - when stoked by professional agitators bused in from outside - of young Asian men whose economic condition gives them every right to feel neglected and resentful.

As the summer swelters on towards autumn, I implore such men to pause and reflect. It's not the fascists you need protecting from. They are just rubbish that will blow along the gutter to the next place if you pay it no mind. It's the other strangers who kindle the pyres, the ones who say they are your friends, but who have the same interest as the Nazis in seeing you burn your streets down. Like the fascists, they will be gone by morning.

Sion Simon is Labour MP for Birmingham Erdington


Newcomers aren't to blame, it has always been bad here

- Alison Coggan, Express, 9aug01, p6

.... Glasgow's troubled Sighthill estate .... "It's not the asylum seekers," said the woman, who was too frightened to give her name. "It's all the gangs of young men roaming about. I've lived here for 35 years. I used to go to the bingo at night but I'm too scared now."

.... Its young men have fought with rival gangs from nearby ....

Now, the differences in skin colour and culture mean gang warfare has been re-branded as racism. ....

"It's not the asylum seekers we want rid of. It's the hooligans and drug addicts," ....

[This maps well onto my ideas, and those of our repeat speaker Geoffrey Ben-Nathan, that we are seeing a rite of passage. See  - Ed]


First enforcement of access order

From: SEAN KELLY < > 12July01

JULY 11th:  A Co. Kildare single father a who has been denied access to his daughter by his ex girlfriend, brought a prosecution against her for denial of access, breach of an access order and for contempt of Court to the (criminal) District Court in Naas Co Kildare.

Ill16 p19

The evidence was laid before the judge in OPEN court, how she had opposed his access application, how she had made false allegations against him, how he finally won access to his child despite every obstacle she vindictively put in his way and finally how she had persistently denied him his Court Awarded access for other reason than she wanted to punish him. He presented a diary showing how he had been denied access on 81 separate occasions this year.

Judge  Murrough Connellan convicting the accused, warned her that her behaviour was unacceptable and he fined her £200 or 5 days in jail.

This is a new departure for the Judiciary and only modesty prevents me from making a possible link between the outcome of this case and recent Father's Day protests.

There has always been an unwillingness on behalf of Judges to enforce Access Orders so that fathers could have some level of "control free " relationship with their children.

One client of mine had been through the mill for 7 years of social workers, child psychologists, (all of whom initially viewed him as a pariah), and 3 section 20 reports, his vindictive alcoholic wife point blank refused to allow him to see his children. After he had paid the Mortgage (for the home where she lived with a succession of boyfriends) all other bills and his maintenance, he had £27.oo to live on every week. He filed in court to have his access order enforced. The Judge played a blinder he said "Oh you have a very good case Mr. XXXX" "But I think I will reopen this entire case and order another section 20 ".  By doing this he very skilfully AVOIDED the issue. The reality of this action was, however, that my client was further denied access to his children indefinitely. That was 18 months ago he still had not seen them and they are totally poisoned against him by her lies and twisted mental state.

Another client went before a judge to have his access order enforced: the Judge said: "Do you really want me to put the mother of your children in prison?" The man replied: "I want you to simply uphold the Law"  "But by doing that you are asking me to imprison this woman" Said the Judge "I want you to do your job and uphold the Law" replied the frustrated man, "Do not presume to tell me what my job is or I will hold YOU in Contempt! " replied the Judge, "Case dismissed"  ....... Again another COP OUT.

Let us hope that this judgement of new appointee, Murrough Connellan, is a first step by the Judiciary in addressing the anti male/ pro female gender bias that is ubiquitous, in not only in the family Courts but in all aspects of the law. A bias that upholds and supports a cultural paradigm of the "Madonna" female "victim" the "Ogre"  Male .

 Let us hope that this will bring under control the epidemic of belligerence, non-compliance and implacable hostility of custodial mothers, who, oppose the concept of responsible Shared Parenting by using innocent children as vindictive weapons of leverage to copper - fasten their positions as power brokers in family break down situations. [Who wrote it? - Ed.]

A number of sources assert that the US black family was complete (father mother children) until early last century, when the welfare state destroyed it. Thus, it was the state, not slavery, which destroyed the black family. Now the white family is following the same path. - Ed


First, Remove the Fathers

Gerald L. Rowles    7/30/01

First, remove the Fathers. It's not Shakespeare (First, kill all the lawyers) but it is a drama that rivals Oedipus in its parallels and impact.

It started out as the "Great Society" and, 30 years later, became the "Welfare State".

In that same span of less than one generation, the black family was decimated and the State became parent to 70% of its black children. How was this accomplished by the Great Society? Simply by throwing money at black women for having more babies and, "no man in the house". That was the basic tenet of the welfare contract. "We will support you and your children at subsistance levels as long as you remain unencumbered by the male parent."

"A woman (And her child) needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."; sayeth the State, parroting the Women's Movement.

Across this nation today, the burgeoning prison industry is populated by more than 50% black males, even though the black population of the United States is hovering in the neighborhood of 14% (about half of whom are females - making the proportion of imprisoned black males even more pronounced). From the professional experience of working within a State prison population, I can attest to you that 85% of these males grew up without a father presence, or even knowledge of who he might be.

Has there ever been a more dramatic and clear-cut outcome in any social science study? Is this not validation of countless contemporaneous scientific studies that have pointed to the many real threats to fatherless children? These studies have grown more numerous in recent years, but this is merely a reiteration of what had been discovered more than fifty years ago in the period following WWII. Social scientists of the Forties detected a social disruption caused by the removal of the vast numbers of American males to foreign shores. Those who had married and left children and wives behind returned to find wives that had become symbiotically attached to their children and more invested in their maternal families than their own nuclear one.

But no one seems to be listening, or taking the information seriously. A columnist contacted me the other day asking for a data source demonstrating "how a marriage helps kids". I reported back to this individual, somewhat tardily and apologetically, on some of the most powerful outcomes obtained by various authors and researchers. And the response was: "Not too late, but not too useful, either. This is typical of lots of the data I've seen, five years or more old. I'm looking for the freshest data and best example of how marriage helps kids. "

This was stunning. Validity was being judged by recency if not immediacy, not content nor scientific rigor. "Lots of data", no acceptance. I'm reminded of the adage - For those who would hear, no explanation is needed; For those who would not, no explanation is sufficient.

An astute observer, Rev. Jesse Lee Patterson (President of B.O.N.D.) recently observed:

White Americans are afraid to deal "straight up" with this issue for fear of being called racists, and as a result, this wicked government takeover is now spreading into the mainstream. We are now beginning to see the dissolution of the family, open mockery of the man, and fathers being removed from their homes via false accusations of spousal abuse. The love of the family is being drained away.

Rev. Patterson proposes to "Rebuild the Family By Rebuilding the Man."

And not a moment too soon, particularly if that primarily involves rebuilding the image of men and fathers - not just reiterating more recrimination.

The growing power of the State over the family is becoming near total. Just this past Friday (7/27/01) the State of Oregon assumed just such a totalitarian stance. The Seattle Intelligencer announced "the Children's Plan by Kitzhaber". Under this plan

"All Oregon parents could have their first-born children screened for medical and social problems under a state-funded program signed into law by Gov. John Kitzhaber yesterday. ... Kitzhaber, a former emergency room physician, says more screening of children for possible developmental risks, such as a parent's drug or alcohol abuse, can help reduce juvenile crime, failures in school and other social problems. ... The measure "sets Oregon apart from the rest of the nation in terms of our vision, our commitment and our resolve toward helping children," Kitzhaber said before signing the measure, HB3569."

And just exactly what happens when the State finds that these parents fail to meet its criteria? And what will be the criteria? Substance abuse? Spousal abuse (based on whose report and what evidence)? Practice Christian religious beliefs? Own a firearm? Raise their children with basic moral and ethical beliefs - and spanking? Demand that their children take responsibility for their actions? Refused a trip to Disneyland?

Tens of thousands of American children are being removed from their parents' homes for just exactly such "justifications", to be raised by States throughout the Union. And at least in one case I know of, sent to Disneyland on taxpayer dollars.

Are you shivering yet? Is Oregon merely the vanguard in reaching the "final solution" to the "parent problem"? (For those the same age as the columnist who contacted me, this is the wording used in Hitler's Germany to justify the onset of the Holocaust. Just substitute the word "Jewish" in place of "parent".)

Once again I will call upon the un-minced, un-spun message of Rev. Patterson to suggest the answer to this potentially virulent State takeover of the family:

"I have attempted to show the level of destruction that the United States government, and now the United Nations, is capable of achieving by simply removing the father from the family equation. Understand that the black family, as it exists today, is a living microcosm of this destruction. In order to change the hell that has taken over our once-noble nation, we must first put fathers and mothers back together, take back the authority (over) our children from the government, reaffirm a strong belief in God and country, get the United States out of the United Nations, and say "hell, no!" to the U.N.'s Convention on the Rights of the Child."

Amen Reverend; A-MEN





Ill Eagle 17

Ill Eagle 17 .. Oct 2001 .... ISSN 1466-9005


Ill17 p1

Hamilton vows to seek sex assault law change

Neil Hamilton has vowed to try to change the law to counter false accusations of sexual assault. In his first speech since being cleared by police of sex abuse allegations against Nadine Milroy-Sloan, Mr Hamilton said he would leave no stone unturned.


Mr Hamilton told a meeting of the men's civil rights organisation, ManKind, in Euston, central London that there is an epidemic of false accusations of sexual assaults. He said: "I'm not just going to wash my hands of this case and go back to Mr Hamilton said he would use "the contacts that we have in Parliament and the media" to attempt to change the law.


Mr Hamilton said there was "a very disturbing trend" of people who think "there is gold in them thar lies". "There is now, as the world knows, the opportunity for any gold-digger to come forward and make a set of false allegations against somebody who has a high profile."


Mr Hamilton told how he and his wife Christine feared that the allegations might have been that they were part of a sexual assault that happened at five o'clock in the morning, as that might have been very difficult to disprove.

Story filed: 13:19 Saturday 15th September 2001

Copyright (c) 2001 Ananova Ltd



The objects for which the Company (i.e. ManKind) is established for charity status ("the objects" clauses) are:-

a/. the alleviation of hardship and distress, in particular amongst those suffering such hardship and distress a result of break-up of marriage and family.

b/. the protection and preservation of men's health both mental and physical in such ways as the company shall decide.

c/. the prevention of discrimination against males on the ground of sex so far as such discrimination is unlawful".


The writer Doris Lessing thinks men are having a hard time. Well, all I can say is it's about time

-         Germaine Greer, Sunday Times, 2sep01, sect.4 p10


You don't know how difficult it is being a closet heterosexual - David Bowie, ibid.


12yr Old Males are a "threat"

My wife recently attended a training session where some of the DV shelter feminazis presented this interesting fact.  Apparently there are NO DV shelters in the Puget Sound, Washington State area that will take in women that have male children with them aged 12yrs or older.

The reason, my wife was told; "They are a threat. They represent revictimization".

Regards;   18sep01


Open Day at Royal Holloway College

Subject: Stanko

Today 13-Oct-01 the Royal Holloway College, Egham, Surrey, discovered a number of individuals protesting about false domestic violence statistics. Prof Elizabeth Stanko, who promotes the 1-in-4 domestic violence lie and is based at the Royal Holloway, was unavailable for comment.

The college was holding an 'Open-Day', but immediately leaflets began circulating to prospective students within the college their security forces decided that they were having a 'Closed-Day'. Evidently the Marxist-Feminist Polit-bureau had learnt nothing from their Polish comrades and elsewhere about the difficulties of closing down Samistat style leafleting.

Most Universities regard Open-Day as a chance to show round would-be students, and members of the public, who want to know more about their activities. Most Universities are quite open about their activities and are only too happy to engage in debate with members of the public. Not least they see this as a public duty towards the very people who fund them through their taxes.

The Royal Holloway college, by contrast, had employed a massive security presence. Far more prevalent than one could expect at Heathrow airport. It became very clear that here was a University that would tolerate: no debate, no alternative views, and not even the peaceful distribution of leaflets. The result of the colleges' purge was that the protesters were relegated to the front gates and forced to make use of a loud-hailer, and posters,  in order to contact would be students and voice their concerns. Many people going in and out of the gates took leaflets and expressed interest in the issues being raised by the protesters. A large number of students came forward to take leaflets and make enquiries. The attempt at femi-cleansing of distributed leaflets also failed. Apparently some of the 'SammysDad' leaflets made their way into the Royal Holloway suggestions box.

The UK is following the lead of highly feminist Universities in the USA and Canada in the onward march of feminism. In Canadian Universities for example female students who attend women art history courses are shocked to discover they receive training in lesbian masturbation techniques using vegetables see . These organisations are intolerant of any alternative viewpoints and lifestyles such as: two parent families, and hetero-sexuality. Indeed the Royal Holloway was showing worrying signs of this trend today. In the college 'Bedford Centre for the history of Women'  a library a poster advertised a Postgraduate Seminar on 17-Oct-2001 "When a Woman Speaks the truth About Her Body: Ethyl Smyth, Virginia Woolf and the Challenges of Lesbian Auto/biography". Do parents really want their children to be educated by a University that promotes hatred of the opposite sex?

This battle will no doubt move off into cyber-space. The femi-nazi government will need all of their wimin-only candidates to push through the legislation for the femi-equivalent of the 'car clamp' on campaigners computers and the introduction of new 'thought' crimes.

The Royal Holloway student helpers were at all times extremely polite and helpful. The security guards however would have felt more at home in commie Poland.

Elizabeth Stanko can be contacted at: Photos of the protest can be seen at: in the history section.  From: Brian Robertson

From: Brian Robertson to Ivor Catt

Subject: Hubble Bubble

Date: 15 October 2001 22:14

Whilst joining in on the fun of the open-'coven' day at the Royal Holloway there were a few issues noticed:

Bedford Centre for the history of Women Library stocks books overwhelmingly by extreme feminists. These books and titles can be checked out at and doing a search for the library. Some examples of the Library feminist authors with number of titles in: S. Orbach  [3], G. Greer [8] F. Weldon[6], G. Steinem [1], A. Dworkin [2],

C. MacKinnon[2] just one such example of hate-male;  "men are

Ill17 p2

biologically aggressive; their fetal brains were awash in androgen; their DNA, in order to perpetuate itself, hurls them into murder and rape." - Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 114

The same History of Women library was not open for the open-day. Why not I wonder? Could this be because of a policy of concealment? Were they embarrassed about this library? Did they think the library would be attacked by an enraged dad?

The University has a 'safety policy' of no female rooms being on the ground floor. So when a burglar breaks into a male room, and disturbs him sleeping, and the student gets his head kicked in, and is injured for life, then that's OK then?

Postgraduate Seminars pushing the Lesbian agenda e.g. 17-Oct-01 (above founder's library). "When a woman speaks the truth about her body: Ethyl Smyth, Virginia Woolf and the Challenges of Lesbian Auto/biography".

Note that it was male-only security guards who were defending this feminist establishment. Surely the sisters with their infinite superiority over men would have been an infinitely better choice? Cluck cluck.

A wonderful Man's Hour interview covering the protest can be heard at;

The next protests at RHC open-days will be: Sat 16-Mar-2002, Wed 19-Jun-2002  - Mr M. Mouse


False Allegations

10oct01    Dear Mr Catt,

Thank you for the copies of e-mails, which I read with interest. At the moment I am trying to get as many people as I can to look at the processes that lead people to be arrested and convicted, rather than individual cases.

I believe that the processes are open to abuse, and that by simply tape recording the witnesses' statement much concern would be alleviated.

I am trying to form an all-party group for the falsely accused, but the vast majority of MPs are very reluctant to join, concerned I guess that they might be seen to be supporting abusers. Please encourage your MP to join my group. Try to reassure him or her that we are essentially interested in the process that leads to conviction.

Claire Curtis-Thomas MP      Member of Parliament for Crosby


Warren Farrell

Dear Ivor, re 15sep01

There is nothing that prevents our sons from growing up without feeling shame, guilt and like second-class citizens more than the lace curtain of censorship that prevents their life experience from being aired equally to women's. When both our sons and daughters are being deprived of their dads because we are not exposed to how important to children dads are, we are leaving the next generation with a "father wound" (similar to the wound of economic security many depression dads still feel no matter how rich in fact they are).

No research has impacted me more than the research on the lace curtain of censorship that encompasses the government, media, helping professions and academia. Getting that published in Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say made me realize how difficult it is for men to speak up so anyone can hear.

Your conference, by unwrapping censorship, is exposing the world to a present it must give itself. That present is half of who we are.

Warren Farrell, Ph.D. 13 Sep. 2001



To:  Ivor, Robert and colleagues.

We in Amen wish you well with your conference and fully support the good work you are doing in addressing the many flawed and damaging aspects of the Family Law System.

We are disappointed to learn that Lord Mayor Ken Livingstone and the GLA have launched an initiative on domestic violence which is based on an outdated and discredited paradigm. This initiative is certain to fail in its stated objectives of preventing and reducing domestic violence as it perpetuates the myth that women are the only victims and men the only perpetrators. Amen's experience and all reliable research show that domestic violence is a 50/50 phenomenon.

In Ireland, recent research, carried out for the Marriage and Relationship Counselling Services (MRCS) in Ireland, showed that women are, in fact, more likely than men to perpetrate domestic violence. This report, based on a survey of 530 clients of MRCS, found that where domestic violence occurs mutual violence accounts for 33% of cases, female perpetrated violence accounts for 41% and male perpetrated violence for 26%.

The Department of Health and Children has also carried out research, to be launched shortly, which will also vindicate the MRCS research and the experience of Amen. In the light of the findings of this research the Government has provided a grant of £50,000 to Amen to run an Awareness and Development Campaign this year. We are at present having consultations with the relevant Government authorities regarding mainstream on-going funding to enable Amen to expand its services in future years.

From the information available on the GLA initiative it would appear that the political establishment in the UK is even more entrenched in the erroneous propaganda based stereotypes than their counterparts in Ireland. Conferences such as yours, which challenge such attitudes, are vital so that the truth emerges for the benefit of families and society generally. I regret that due to circumstances beyond my control I cannot be with you. Again I wish you every success in your endeavours. - Sincerely, Mary T Cleary, Amen, sep01


Men in hiding  from  sep01

NEW REPORT: "Hooking Up, Hanging Out, and Hoping for Mr Right - College Women on Dating and Mating Today"

.... .... There appears to have been a reduction in male initiative in dating and courting on college campuses. Recognize that the burden of dating and mating should not fall on women alone, and that there is a need for greater male initiative.

Recognize that socially defined courtship is the historical pathway to marriage. When it comes to inherently social acts such as romance and marriage, social rules do more than restrict individual choice, they also facilitate it. The absence of appropriate updated social norms, rituals and relationship milestones leaves many young women confused, and often disempowered, in their relationships with men.

The Institute for American Values (IAV) conducted the research and prepared the study for the Independent Women's Forum (IWF). For more information, contact Kate Kennedy or Ivy Stewart at 703-558-4991  [IWF is the backlash against the dreadful NOW in the USA. Their ideas are similar to ours, but sometimes take us further, e.g. in their journal femina, june01, pp4,7; "Women actually earn 98 cents on the dollar when factors such as age, education, and experience are taken into account." - Ed]


CSA refunds 'dad' after DNA test   17oct01

A bachelor from Cardigan is getting a £30,000 refund from the Child Support Agency after a DNA test proved he was not the father of a baby. Gerard Bradbury has been paying up to £100 a week for seven years after a brief affair with a woman who then claimed she was having his child.

It is only the second time in Britain that a man has overturned a maintenance order after a DNA test proved he could not have been the father. Mr Bradbury decided to pay for the £200 test because he could barely afford the payments from his £400 a week wages and had a "nagging doubt" about being the boy's father. He said: "There must be hundreds of men throughout the country in my situation and I would urge them to have a DNA test. If the baby is yours then you grin and bear it and pay up. But I think a lot of men are being taken for a ride."

Gerard is due to get the refund - plus interest - in the next few weeks. CSA officials will decide whether the mother will have to bear the cost of refunding the money. [Nice to know our taxes pay for female fraud. - Dave Ellison]

Also at


Ill17 p3




Ex-Minister Neil Hamilton was only one among a bevy of excellent speakers at our 28oct01 conference on censorship. The conference was video recorded, as was last year's. In these recordings, we have a capital asset on which we can draw for many years.

Following the excellent initiative from the West Country, targeting rogue judges' homes (which led to our activist member Mark Harris being jailed), I am grateful to Brian Robertson for extending our range to targeting radfem academics who falsify statistics. Colleges like RHC, which continue to harbour staff who falsify their research results, are especially vulnerable on their Open Days, when we can warn potential students and their parents against studying there. We also need to approach their Ethical Standards Committees, and also the University Grants Committee, to try to cut off their main funding at source. The £63 millions p.a. ESRC, , which supplies Stinko with millions of pounds of government money to falsify statistics in her attack on men, also needs to be subjected to pressure.  is in charge of their complaints procedure. See



ManKind and Ill Eagle can be reached at:-

1). Suite 367, 2 Lansdowne Row, 

     London W1X 8HL.  


3)  Email 


The Editor, Ivor Catt, 121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR, England.

( 01727 - 864257   Email  )


Prone to Violence

by Erin Pizzey

Suppressed and boycotted by feminists, on-line edition at    It is now back in print.  Commoners' Publishing Inc., ISBN 0-88970-103-2,  5.5x8.5", 134 pp quality paperback, $19.95


The Radfem Quagmire

Now that radfems are so powerful, we need to analyse them in depth. Below, we see how inconsistent they are on whether they want to confuse or not confuse objectivity with subjectivity. They are polemicists, not reformers, and so incapable of handling power constructively. That is what makes their wielding of power so destructive.



Feminisms, ed. Sandra Kemp and Judith Squires, OUP 1997, p142

".... these feminist epistemological frameworks tend to share a critical stance in relation to rationality, objectivity, and universality, asserting the significance and legitimacy of emotional, politically engaged, and particularistic ways of knowing" - quoted in Ill Eagle 16, p8


".... patriarchy never announced its real purposes .... declaring god and nature made women subordinate to men - by endowing men but not women with .... reason, logic ...." - Marilyn French, The War Against Men, pub Hamish Hamilton1992, p10

These blatant contradictions in radfem propaganda are prolific. Being such a mess makes radfems destructive. - Ed


"Gender feminists have tried to promote things like feminist philosophy of science and even mathematics, which is ludicrous but also, again, an affront to those women who do exceptionally well in these fields. As a woman I cannot help think that one of the driving forces behind gender feminism is a secret jealousy of those women who have succeeded academically, socially and politically without it." - Antonia, Ill Eagle 16, p5

[However, Antonia does not explain why very successful women like Baroness Margaret Jay attack men so viciously. Perhaps it is Jay's reported lack of intelligence which incenses her, rather than her lack of success. - Ed]


3-year limit for claims of abuse

- Frances Gibb, Times, 10july01 

  Victims of child abuse should have no more than three years to bring a claim after reaching the age of 18 unless courts give them special permission, the Law Commission recommends today.

The Government's law reform watchdog proposes an overhaul of the law on the time limits for bringing civil claims. The present law, contained in the Limitation Act, 1980, varies according to the type of claim and can be anomalous and unfair, the Commission says. It wants to rationalise the time limits so as to make sure that once people know of a reason to bring a claim, they cannot delay without good cause.

Professor Hugh Beale, the Law Commissioner responsible for the project, said that the proposals would modernise the law and make it more rational, transparent and, as far as possible, uniform, striking a fair balance between claimants and defendants.



Tonight I had a phone call out of the blue.

It was a Jason Carmichael, aged 39. He'd heard ManKind helped men in trouble. His father aged 63 committed suicide in 1999 after being accused by a girl (aged 18) of rape. He was a security guard. An ordinary family man trying to make ends meet. His father was arrested and given police bail. It took 5 months for forensic evidence to be processed but this was 2 months too late. After 3 months of waiting his father committed suicide. Police did a DNA, a fingernail tests and semen test. He was not linked - i.e. negative. It was the girl's mother that pressed and pursued the matter of rape. The police complaints procedure was not much use. He had no luck with solicitors. He has had no satisfaction from police, legal aid or victim support. He's still grieving the sudden and unnecessary loss of his father. He has not fully recovered. He still feels people looking at him. (Area - Newcastle, Morpeth, 1999. Stockport).

What does he seek ? Compensation, explanation, apology ?. Who knows ? He doesn't. - RW,   21sep01.


Letter from our Treasurer

Dear Mr. Blunkett [Home Secretary],

Your comments on the right to freedom from hatred reported on television two days ago interest me. They remind me of the comments of the Prime Minister regarding Kosovo. He was talking of the crime of taking fathers from their families.

In Britain fathers are being taken every day from their families. We do not shoot them. We are more subtle. Secret courts allow women to tell lies and flout court orders.

Men, in Britain, are subject to vilification and hatred. The government is at the fore-front of this process. It uses selected statistics and sexually tilted legislation. It had a nasty advertisement on Scottish television telling children to report their fathers in the event of domestic violence.

The campaign of hate against men is the result of the biological lie of the Sex Discrimination Act. Biological reasons for sexual differences are denied and other reasons have to be found. Hence the fiction that women would have achieved had they not been oppressed by men. Marriage, so it is claimed, is slavery for women. Now couples cannot live together long enough to raise a family. Colossal damage has been done to millions of children by broken families and never constituted families. But the government promotes the fiction that all life-styles are equally valid. It legislates to oppress men.

You have been responsible for education. Much of the cause of the  failures of British education result from denying mental sexual differences in the class room and the damage done to children when their parents separate. The figures showing educational achievement are lies. They have been fixed. Standards have fallen not risen. But the establishment cannot even deduce correctly from the fixed figures. That the girls appear to be doing so much better than the boys is not proof of past feminine disadvantage. It is proof of sexual differences inside the head. The girls always were ahead of the boys

Ill17 p4

at school. We call it precocity and it is a sexual difference.

It is now well established that only marriage provides the stability of parenthood necessary to raise happy, achieving children. Loss of the father's constant presence results in failure at school. high young male unemployment, underage pregnancies, drug and substance abuse, crimes of violence, and many other social ills. The government's role has been legislation tilted against the right of men to a fair trial and its promotion of the "cause" of women. It encourages anti-male invective. It encourages campaigns of hate and lies, telling its own lies with selected statistics.

Before you give another talk about freedom, think about the tilted laws already passed and those in the pipeline. Think about the man falsely accused of rape, who is deemed guilty as soon as his name is published and his accuser is given anonymity. Think about the false accusations of domestic violence encouraged and accepted in the secret "family" courts. All these injustices are the result of hatred of men by a few mad feminists of both sexes who have been allowed to voice their hate unchallenged. Think about the denial of biological differences which has caused all this.

When you hear of underage sex and teenage pregnancy think of sexual hatred. When crime and drug abuse soar, think about false biology. When another school fails its Ofsted inspection, if you have religious faith, think about the wrath of God.

Do not address hate and other problems in isolation. Freedom from official lies and freedom from law based on lies are fundamental freedoms. If we ever get those freedoms the world will be a better place and hatred of all kinds will be very much less.  - Yours sincerely, T H Aldridge  4oct01


Please lobby your MP

On October 2nd all MPs were given a copy of the Family Policy Document and a copy of the CD/Video The Scandal of the Family Courts.

If you have read the policy document (available from ) and agree with it, will you now lobby your MP and ask him/her to form a cross-party group to reform Family Law based on the Family Policy Document which, in summary, requests the following;

* Equal Parenting - The principles of equal parenting to be introduced as the first option for caring for children after divorce or separation.

* Risk assessment - Both parents to be risk assessed to ensure their suitability to care for their children. This risk assessment would be undertaken by CAFCASS (Children & Family Court Advisory Service).

* False allegations/perjury - Either parent making false allegations or committing perjury to face criminal charges.

* Care programmes - Subject to a clean bill of health, both parents to be obliged to develop a Care Programme for their children with the guidance of a suitably trained Welfare Officer.

* Sanctions - Either parent who obstructs this process or subsequently does not adhere to the Care Programme, to be denied equal parent status, leaving the other parent as the Sole Parent with care. The parent obstructing the process would be obliged to apply for contact.

When you have seen your MP, will you please notify us of the outcome by either: (Please include your name and address and your MP)

1. email:

2. Phone: 01643 863352

3. Letter: The Coalition of Equal Parenting, PO Box 28, Minehead, Somerset TA24 8YT


Norman Scarth

If anyone wants to write to Norman Scarth (the 76 year-old pensioner who was beaten up by police and given a 10 year jail sentence) then he has a new address. You can find details on him if you use the search engines and type in his name.

Brian Robertson.

[Norman Scarth telephoned me today. He said he would be dead in a few months. He told me that part of the torture was to continually move him around. At present he is at Dovegate, Nr. Uttoxeter, Staffs. He said we should phone Carolyn Marsden, 01274 544871 for up to date information. He says his earlier success in the European Court against the British Establishment has made it vindictive. - Ed, 17oct01]


What God has joined together ....

- Stephen Baskerville

[Stephen spoke at our 28oct00 conference. This very fine, lengthy article about the rapidly growing Child Protection Industry is at - Ed]

This article is published in the August-September issue of the Catholic World Report, a highly respected and influential magazine of Catholic opinion throughout the world, and especially in the US. 

This is an important development right now, because the Bush administration is reaching out to Catholics, as witnessed by the president's meeting with the Pope.  National Public Radio recently did a very long story about the administration's relations with Catholics. 

It is also a breakthrough because of what many of you have observed to be the churches' conspicuous silence over the forced destruction of families by the state.  Please show this to your priests and pastors and to your own church newsletters or denominational magazines.  You don't have to be Catholic (I'm not).  Perhaps include a shorter essay of your own with similar material. 

Letters can be sent to Box 1608, So. Lancaster, MA  01561 or .

I also want to thank everyone who has written letters, organized or signed petitions, and otherwise supported me in my ordeal with Virginia.  Even if I don't respond to every show of support, I am certainly appreciative.  The matter is far from over.

Stephen Baskerville, PhD

Department of Political Science

Howard University

Washington, DC  20059




Details on next article;


'I fought for the right to see my son'

Telegraph, 15oct01

After 26 court cases, divorcee Oliver Cyriax gained fair access to his son. Now he intends to help others, he tells Cassandra Jardine

According to her memoirs, when Anne Robinson lost the right to have her daughter living with her, the court ruling left her in such despair that only drink could quieten her "demons". She describes the courtroom - expensive, acrimonious, divisive - as "the most inappropriate place for a situation like ours to be settled". (One step at a time: Oliver Cyriax has now gained access to his son. 'Last week I taught him to ride a bike,' he says.)

That was 28 years ago. "Since then, the situation has hardly changed," says Oliver Cyriax, a lawyer and crime writer, who has been through a similar ordeal and has conducted a one-man campaign to overhaul the legal system concerning custody of children and access rights. He riffles through a photo album and produces a snapshot of himself with a young girl on his shoulders. "That's my daughter," he says. "It was taken on holiday at exactly the time when I was deemed unfit to see my son."

Reading Robinson's account, you get an overwhelming sense that, in 1973, the arrangements regarding children of estranged parents were haphazard. It wasn't her drinking that counted against her - it was her ambition.

The judge took against her nervous sneer and her wish to work. Robinson felt that, as a woman, she was under pressure to conform to the judge's view of feminine behaviour. While that prejudice has, to some extent, changed, for non-resident parents - mostly men - it is still an uphill battle to prove they are fit to care for their children. It took Oliver Cyriax six years and 26 court hearings even to be allowed reasonable access to his son, though he thought he had "a golden case". Mixed memories: it was whilst on holiday with his daughter that Oliver Cyriax was deemed unfit to see his son.

"I had a good home, a good job and my ex-wife hadn't even made any allegations against me - and yet the courts kept refusing my requests."

Ill17 p5

He is still so anxious about the courts turning against him that he dare not name his son or allow the boy's face to be seen in photographs. Remembering the low moments, when he feared he would never be allowed to have his child for the weekend or let his daughter play with his son, Cyriax is overcome with emotion.

But he is a fighter and he soon switches back into Rumpole of the Bailey mode, attacking Britain's "crass" system for arranging the parenting of children after a break-up. "It has created a lost generation," he says. It is not just his own situation that enrages Cyriax. Files of similar cases line his living room shelves. Tony Coe, who runs the Equal Parenting Council and has fought with partial success to see his own four daughters, views Cyriax as a hero who has "single-handedly created the climate for change".

Many of those involved in the process agree with Cyriax that radical changes are needed. Sue Bland, a partner with solicitors Gordon Dadds, is shocked at what happens.

"It takes months for a case to come to court and, in that time, many parents lose touch with their children. Some give up altogether. It's also expensive: it offers no support to a family going through a difficult time and, if one parent is determined to prevent the other from seeing the children, the courts are toothless."

Cyriax believes the system achieves the exact opposite of the intention of the Children Act. "According to the Lord Chancellor's department, 'the Children Act seeks to encourage both parents to share in their children's upbringing'. All the research shows that children do best if they see both parents - yet 110,000 court cases each year are brought by parents who are prevented from doing so." Hurt and angry spouses may use children as pawns in a game of revenge - and the law, Cyriax believes, helps them. "After a divorce, the parent with residence has all the power," he says. "It makes no difference whether it is a woman or a man - the system creates a tyranny. The other parent's only right is to go to court to apply to see his or her child. And the law as it stands upholds the wishes of the resident parent."

Cyriax, who now advises others on handling their cases without a lawyer, has helped hundreds of supplicants who find themselves treated not as concerned parents but as troublemakers. "Anything can be held against you. If you are five minutes late, you are irresponsible. A child who falls asleep on the way home is overtired; one who doesn't is too lively and therefore neglected. One man was accused of 'bribing' his son by giving him a pen in front of the court welfare officer. Another was told he was trying to set up a rival home because he bought toys."

Over the eight years since his son was born, Cyriax, 50, has become radical in a way that still surprises him. In the early days, he felt bewildered and depressed by the endless personal criticisms during the hearings. Anything from a smile that looked like a sneer to a tendency to ask too many questions might harm his case.

But, as one court hearing followed another, Cyriax rallied. His sense of humour and intellectual outrage gave him the courage to carry on: "I'm lucky, I'm a trained solicitor: I can express myself and I have just enough money to live on from the books I've written."

But what really kept Cyriax going was his relationship with his daughter, Holly, now 16. He and Holly's mother split up when she was an infant and Holly has always lived with her mother. But from the start, she spent holidays and weekends with her father, without the courts becoming involved. "She has two parents who love her, support her and live within the same envelope of friends. As civilised separations go, the results couldn't be better. Everyone speaks well of one another. She can't see the gaps."

A few years after Holly's birth, he married and his son was born, but the relationship didn't last. "It's sad, but not unusual," says Cyriax. When he parted from his wife, he wanted a similar relationship with his son to the one he had with Holly. He assumed that the courts would support a father's wish to play a part in his child's life.

He soon learnt otherwise. By the time his son was two, Cyriax was on his fifth hearing and was seeing him for only a few hours a week. Every extra minute had to be fought over. "There are no guidelines for reasonable access," he explains, "and the law treats every case differently, even though there have been 500,000 roughly similar cases in the past 10 years."

At times, he was branded a vexatious litigant. "I was in danger of losing everything, but I had to keep edging forward. I knew that if a child is allowed to stay for the night, you are nearly there."

Eventually, nights led to weekends. Now Cyriax can take his son to school, and his two children can play together. The key to success lies, he thinks, in the court welfare officers' reports. "Who are these people passing judgement on parental fitness?" he wondered. Investigation revealed that they are probation officers, used to dealing with criminals, who are given "no more training than traffic wardens" for their delicate work.

Furious, Cyriax started an organisation called Information on Probation Officers in Welfare Work (INPOWW). He wrote countless letters to MPs, judges and the Lord Chancellor's department, demanding information on guidelines and a complaints procedure.

Victory came this April, when responsibility for access cases was moved from the Probation Service to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). In its chairman, Anthony Hewson, Cyriax has at last found someone within the system who admits there are faults.

To Cyriax, the solution is simple. After a break-up, reasonable contact should be the norm - except if a parent is violent or unstable - and parents should be expected to comply. Such a system already exists in America, where parents are made aware that they are hurting their children by preventing them from seeing the other parent.

The word "Support" in CAFCASS's title gives Cyriax hope that the new body will take a more positive approach to a situation that affects some 25 per cent of British children. But he fears that change may be slow, since the same court welfare officers have been re-employed and there are still no guidelines.

Fighting court cases does not help wounds to heal. Enforced co-operation, even if that goes against the grain, can be more palliative. Cyriax has found this himself: now that he is seeing his son every other weekend, during half the holidays and once midweek, a transformation has occurred. "My son feels as though he has a second home with me," he says. "Last week, I taught him to ride a bike."

More surprisingly, his relationship with his ex-wife has blossomed since their child became a shared joy, not a battleground. "She's charming. I can see now why I married her. She rings me up and we swap anecdotes about our son. If I forget to send him back with his socks, instead of being terrified that it will mean the end of access, she'll say, 'That's nothing, last week I forgot his shoes'."

INPOWW, 4 Cardross Street, London W6 ODR, email:


Nurture the boy, save the man,,7-2001282346,00.html

This is the first mainstream article in a major British newspaper that specifically links fatherlessness with the social ills and problems we have been trying to get across to Gov't and to the media. – RW



Solicitors linked to quarter of SFO cases

- Chris Blackhurst, Independent, 11sep01

Solicitors are suspects in a quarter of cases under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, it was disclosed yesterday.

Rosalind Wright, head of the SFO, chose the opening full day of the annual international conference on economic crime, held in Cambridge, to launch a withering attack on lawyers, accusing them of assisting and encouraging organised crime....

[A lawyer named Strange died, and his friend asked the tomb-stone maker to inscribe on his tombstone, "Here lies Strange, an honest man, and a lawyer."

The inscriber insisted that such an inscription would be confusing, for passers-by might think that three men were buried under the stone. However he suggested an alternative: He would inscribe, "Here lies a man who was both honest and a lawyer." That way, whenever anyone walked by the tombstone and read it, they would be certain to remark: "That's Strange!"]

Ill17 p6

Clayton Giles

President George W. and First Lady Laura Bush

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,

Washington DC. 20500-0001


Dear Mr. President and First Lady:

     My name is Clayton Giles and I'm a fourteen-year-old Canadian boy. By the time I get to Washington, DC., on September 6th, 2001, I will have travelled 3600 miles on my bicycle to see you. Along my way, I will have spoken with thousands of children who have asked me to deliver a message to you:   "Please help us."

     Thousands of American children are dying every year - not from a disease or a disaster - but by their own hand. The second leading cause of death in children my age is suicide and over three thousand American children took their own lives last year. What could possibly drive a fourteen, a twelve and even an eight-year-old child to commit suicide? How can children so young find life so hopeless? For ninety-one per cent of these children, it's the loss of a two-parent home and the confusion, frustration, anger and depression that results from being thrust into a situation which they never wanted, in which they have no say, and over which they have no control.

     A court took my father from me when I was eight years old. They said he did not "merit" access to me or my sister, Lindsay. In other words, we were a good-conduct prize. Like so many children, I was victimized by a legal system that sees children as sub-humans, as weapons in a battle, and as prizes to be awarded to the victor. Luckily, I was  reunited with my father when I was eleven but those three years without him were the most horrible of my life.

At  school I spent more time in the hall than in the classroom. I was finally kicked out of school. I was constantly in fist fights. At home I spent most of my time in my room where I often cried myself to sleep at night. Suicide was always on my mind. My father never abandoned his struggle to be with me, because if he had, I would not be riding my bicycle to Washington. Like all those other poor children, I would be dead.

     Mr. President, I and millions of American and Canadian children are asking that we be treated with basic human dignity. We want the right to love both our parents, without fear or guilt. We don't want to be used as pawns and prizes in a battle that polarizes our parents and destroys their financial ability to care for us. For this to happen, we need your help.

     I have prepared a petition (attached) that calls for equal shared parenting and children having a voice in divorce proceedings. I believe - and many legislators, professionals and residents of your country who have signed my petition also believe - that a presumption of equal shared parenting would remove children as a prize and result in a significant reduction in the animosity, duration and cost of divorce proceedings.

     When our parents are encouraged to share us, rather than to win us, our emotional and physical well-being will improve and the disgraceful legacy of child suicide will be reduced significantly.

     I plan to end my ride at the Zero Mile marker on The Ellipse on September 6th, 2001 [Note: Moved to 7th]. I will remain in Washington until September 12th, 2001. May I please personally present my petition to you during that time period?

Yours sincerely,    Clayton Giles Journey for Kids

On the road in America

tel: 403-870-KIDS  email: website:


When can I see my children?

- Maureen Freely, Times, 17sep01

The system for making contact arrangements for children after divorce is deeply flawed and urgently needs to be reformed. 

There is, to my knowledge, no law that sets out the rights and wrongs of children's bedrooms. But there was a moment 12 years ago when I thought there must be. The occasion was a meeting with the judge who was to grant me my decree nisi. He needed to make sure that my then husband and I had made satisfactory arrangements for our small son and daughter. Everything was going smoothly until he found out that the children - then five and nine - were sharing a bedroom. Only for the time being, mind you. We were in a short let. We were on the lookout for something bigger. But from his reaction you would have thought that I was running a rooming house for paedophiles. Did not I know that it was dangerous, unhealthy and disgraceful for a boy and a girl to be in the same bedroom? As he boomed away, I promised myself that I would never again put myself in this position.

That is why, during disputes with my children's father about money, residence, schools and holidays, I have never considered seeking justice in the family courts. Hundreds of thousands of other parents have, though. Typically, they do so to resolve intractable disagreements about contact. Inevitably, temperatures run high. But most go to law in the belief that the court system is cool, balanced, dispassionate and fair. They assume that the experts who assess them and their children are themselves routinely assessed and, it goes without saying, that they really are experts. And if these parents are not convicted train robbers, and if they have never been convicted of child abuse or domestic violence, they assume their right to see their children will never be in doubt. In fact, they have no such right. Although the Children Act was built on the premise of shared parenting, the only right it gives to parents is the right to apply to see their children.

In contact cases, parents do not get far without the blessing and support of a family court reporter (previously known as family court welfare officers). Typically, they came out of the probation service, and arrived in the unit on secondment. Their induction into welfare work was optional and cursory. As Alan Sealy, a former senior family court welfare officer, said in a publicly circulated memorandum last year: "It has never been expected that officers transferring to family court welfare from probation would have any special skills in working with children and families. Secondments have often been of short duration, leaving inadequate opportunities for any development of expertise or sound experience."

After some months in the job, the family court reporter is sent on training courses which last for just "three days after a certain interval and a further three days some months later", Sealy says. "These training courses have inevitably been in-house led". This shows in "the way in which the court welfare reports are written".

As Oliver Cyriax, a lawyer and long-time campaigner for reform, points out, "parking wardens receive longer training". Regarded by the courts as experts ["They are highly experienced people and the Family Courts rely on their findings" - "Justice" Thorpe, Ill Eagle 4, p1] family court reporters advise judges on how often a non-resident parent can see his or her children. It is customary for a judge to go along with their advice. And it is unwise for a solicitor to challenge their findings: family court solicitors assume that judges do not like it. There is precious little you can do apart from taking another year out of your life to make another application.

No complaints procedure exists. The right to appeal is narrowly defined. There are no guidelines for post-divorce contact for children. Furthermore, there are no case studies or data on outcomes from the one million cases that have gone through the system so far.

If all this comes as a surprise, it is not your fault. There is next to no information about the workings of the family law system in the public domain - and precious little available to government agencies. Cases are secret, as are the "welfare reports" made by the family court reporters. It is a contempt of court for anyone not party to the case to see them. These measures are designed to protect children and other vulnerable parties. Yet what they do best is to protect the family courts from public scrutiny.

It is estimated that the parents of 200,000 children go through this flawed system every year. In one case, the family court reporter noted that the father had told his child that he preferred Monopoly to Cluedo and that daisies smell better than bluebells. She saw this as "taking the lead too much in contact" - a form of emotional abuse, in her view. A parent who gave his child a pencil in the presence of another reporting officer was seen as "trying to bribe his way in her affection". Another parent was accused of "trying to set up an alternative home" because he had bought his child a train set. A

Ill17 p7

father who wanted to take his child to see Granny in the Black Forest instead of Brighton, the destination preferred by the family court reporter, was seen as domineering. In another case, the family court reporter could find no reason why a child should not see more of his father. She went on to say that "nonetheless, the mother must be concerned about something", and advised that contact be limited to two hours, once every six weeks. A father with no signs of abnormality had to undergo three tests to prove that he was normal. This was then judged to be inconclusive because he only "appeared normal". And if you think that takes the biscuit, then just listen to the one about the family court reporter who advised that a father should be denied contact with his deaf son. The father's desire for contact was normal, she said. "But Tom was not a normal boy."

"There seems to be little protection against the subjectivity of family court reporters," says Caroline Bowden, a solicitor and mediator at the law firm Anthony Gold. In her long experience of family courts, stories such as these all point to the same systemic fault. Some court reporters are dedicated and conscientious, she says. Neither is it true that they are out to disadvantage men. Another family court solicitor who did not wish to be named, also insists that some family court reporters are "excellent and creative in trying to find solutions". But if they form a low opinion of you, your chances of getting the outcome you want are slim. Bowden, however, thinks that they are expected to take on more responsibility than any one person should have to take, and to make difficult decisions without appropriate support. "They go out by themselves," she says. "They make judgements about who is the more creditable parent, who is good as a parent and how the child seems. But there are no benchmarks or guidelines. There are not enough borders for these people to work in." The question of training is paramount. No one should interview children unless they have been thoroughly prepared.

It is easy to traumatise a child, she points out, and there is also the problem of the child who echoes a parent's point of view. The core issue, says Tony Coe, president of the Equal Parenting Council, is that family court reporters do not have a mission. Their job should be "to support the child's relationship with both their parents and, if that does not happen, to explain why". The current system, he says, is "like the fire brigade turning up to the scene of the blaze and writing a report about the building instead of getting a hose and putting the fire out".

It was thought that these issues would be rectified in April when the service was taken away from the Home Office and made part of the new Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass). Anthony Hewson, its new head, is adamant that reform is essential. But so far it appears that the same people are operating the service and that only their titles have changed. When the service was launched, there was a chance to transform the people, the ideas and the process, says Bowden. "But it has turned into a medley of people who were already there continuing to do what they were already doing."

The first step, says Kate Green of the National Council for One Parent Families, is to get a better picture of family court outcomes as well as post-divorce family life. "We really need to see what works and what helps." Only research can tell us if flexible, case-sensitive guidelines might work, or how mediation can be part of the picture. "There is a dearth of objective research and information. We strongly urge the Government to make the investment," she says. Many others working with families after separation and divorce are of the same opinion, as are a number of us who actually live in such families.

It is to give a voice to this underconsulted consituency that a group of journalists (I am one of them) have formed Families After Marriage. If nothing else, we have learnt an awful lot about what works and what does not by practising on ourselves. There has to be a better way. While some reforms will take a great deal of time, others could happen now if the people at the top took them seriously and if the rest of us understood what we can expect from the present system. As one solicitor speaking off the record says: "It would be helpful if there was more understanding of what the courts can achieve - and if people stopped expecting justice and fairness."

For more information on Families After Marriage:

[Maureen Freely's book What About Us? discusses the betrayal of married families by the Women's Movement. - Ed] [See similar Observer 21oct01 article at ]


To Maureen Freely;

"When can I see my children?" - Times, 17sep01

Your article emphasises the primacy of research into Outcome. The old guard in CAFCASS persistently try to fog up the meaning of the word. "Outcome" means the statistics on the state of the children 5, 10, 15 years after the decisions were made. The 5 year results will be available quite soon (just over 5 years). Robert Whiston, a member of CAFCASS, has a clear view of what the word "Outcome" means. Its meaning must not be allowed to be corrupted. Initially, the old guard in CAFCASS wanted it to mean whether the child thought it was treated kindly during interview by the Court Welfare Officer, and so forth. They will do everything to confuse and deflect my proposals (below), because it institutes Accountability.

My position is that results on "Outcome" - later suicide rate by the child, school dropout, teenage pregnancy etc. - can be used to institute Accountability. Thus, if an excessive percentage of children under advice (to the judge) from one Court Welfare Office later commit suicide, or become teenage pregnant, etc., then that CWO is brought before a tribunal to justify the large figures. Lacking explanation, his employment is terminated. This procedure could be used in as little as six years to begin to weed out anti-social CWOs.

Outcome for one region's CWO's could also be compared with Outcome for another region's CWOs. We can also go international with such objective statistics as suicide and teenage pregnancy. Canada, Eire, USA, Australia, NZ are in more or less exactly the same mess as England.

Statistics on Outcome could also be used to monitor the effectiveness of competing CWO training agencies. If those CWOs trained by the Birmingham training agency ended up with a much greater child suicide rate than those trained by the leeds training agency, the training contract for Birnmingham would be terminated.

Thus, Accountability could be instituted at every level by means of statistics on Outcome. For this to work, we need more than one training agency.

My position is that CWOs should have the implicit job insecurity (above) built into their employment contracts. Also, I diverge from my allies in wanting more discretion for CWOs, a higher level of education, to go with accountability and therefore insecurity based on Outcome statistics. Generally, my allies want to more rigidly limit the freedom of CWOs according to set procedures. I would rather give more training (education), more in-service training (attendance at conferences), more pay, more freedom, and make them stand by the results of their work as demonstrated by Outcomes. This would make possible evolution towards better methods; better and better advice to judges by CWOs. - Ivor Catt


Joint Residence

The Court of Appeal has overturned Joint Residence Orders made by a lower court and substituted a Sole Residence Order. The Court of Appeal has on occasion upheld a Joint Residence Order made by a lower court. The Court of Appeal has NEVER overturned a Sole Residence Order made by a lower court and substituted a Joint Residence Order. I suggest that this would be the acid test of claims that the attitude of the courts has significantly changed towards Joint Residence.

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss was the judge who did more damage than any other to the will of Parliament over Joint Residence orders - hardly had s.11(4) Children Act 1989 been enacted than the judiciary did their best to nullify its effect. The recent case of Re D is not proof of repentance on the part of the President. Said Dame Elizabeth, with Thorpe LJ etc., is playing a big part in the Bath Global Conference on Family Law & the Protection of Children, where judges and "experts" and lawyers from all over the world will be praising each other's legal systems and dreaming up more effective ways of controlling family life - WHAT is FNF's official contribution to the protest movement being organised at this Conference? Answer - NOTHING.

Butler-Sloss is whose best buddy? [Answer; Softon. - Ed] 

FNF's Newsletter McKenzie No.50 (distributed 5 September ) has a column (p.5) describing what the International Conference is about and mentioning some of the great and good who will be there, but there is NOT A WORD about the protests and demonstrations planned.

Still a member of FNF but not too proud of it  -  Michael J. Pelling. 9sep01


Ill17 p8


This seems topical now, s we've decided that there's an industry out there just waiting to be recognised - RW

Save us from social workers on crusade

- Donna Laframboise, National Post (Canada), 12july01

.... Here in Canada, judges have condemned social workers for taking sides when divorcing mothers have falsely accused fathers of child sexual abuse. In one such case, an Ontario judge concluded in 1994 that the Children's Aid Society of Durham Region continued to argue in court that a father was guilty even after it had belatedly realized he was innocent. (In effect, he was being punished for declining the society's offer of a financial settlement.) That this was a dismal way to serve the interests of the man's two daughters - who were supposed to be the society's sole focus - seems to have escaped the social workers involved.

.... In another false sex abuse case, a Manitoba judge condemned a social worker in 1999 for, among other things, glossing over serious concerns regarding a mentally disturbed mother's ability to care for her daughter. In the words of the judge, the social worker "was determined to stop [the father] from seeing [his daughter] and it appeared that she would go to any length." The child suffered terribly as a result -- to the point where, noted the judge, this six-year-old "spoke of jumping out a window."

Also see Canadian Senate Debates 17feb00. Lawyers conniving in false allegations during divorce proceedings. Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cools


Icons of feminism rue their legacy

Donna Laframboise, National Post, 27aug01

Amid the gushy sentimentality that permeates the Hallmark store near where I work, amid the cutesy stuffed animals and the guardian angel pins, a serpent lurks. It takes the form of a 3-by-4-inch gift book titled What Women Say About Men. Within its 70-odd pages there's Lady Nancy Astor remarking: "I married beneath me - all women do." There's Roseanne Arnold insisting: "A good man doesn't just happen. They have to be created by us women." And Madame de Stal declaring: "The more I see of men, the more I like dogs."

Eight years after it first appeared, this toxic little volume is still in print - presumably because it sells well. Which helps explain why, at Scotland's Edinburgh International Book Festival earlier this month, Doris Lessing became Britain's third prominent female writer in as many years to issue a passionate plea on behalf of men and boys. She is, she says, "increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture  it is hardly even noticed."

Following the publication of her 1962 novel, The Golden Notebook, the now 81-year-old Ms. Lessing became a feminist icon. But after watching the women's movement transform much of the Western world, she says something went terribly wrong along the way.

There are "many wonderful, clever, powerful women everywhere. But what is happening to men? Why did this have to be at the cost of men?" she asks. During a recent visit to a class of 10-year-olds, Ms. Lessing saw the female teacher "telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men. You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit, while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologizing for their existence."

Fay Weldon, the author of such novels as Down Among the Women and Female Friends made similar remarks in a May, 1998 Harper's Magazine essay. While acknowledging the low status of women in countries such as Afghanistan, Ms. Weldon says feminism has gone too far in Britain, and that the pendulum "needs nudging back to a more moderate position."

Somewhere along the way, she says, the "gender switch was thrown" and it became men who were "slighted, condemned by virtue of gender to casual and automatic insult. 'Oh men!' say the women, disparagingly. Males hear it all the time, in the workplace and in the home, at the bus stop and over the dinner table, and suffer from it. No tactful  concessions are made to male presence. Men, the current female wisdom has it, are all selfish bastards; hit-and-run fathers; potential abusers/ rapists/ pedophiles; all think only with their dicks, and they'd better realize it."

Ms. Weldon has little patience for people who consider this fitting payback for the sins of these men's fathers. " 'Serves the men right,' I hear the women say. 'We're glad if they suffer a bit, after all those centuries! Give them a taste of their own medicine.' Except, except!" she protests, "Feminism was never after vengeance, simply justice ... 10 wrongs don't make a right. And since the men seem too terrified to speak, or are too extremist to be taken seriously, someone has to speak for them."

A year later, that someone was Rosalind Coward, a columnist with The Guardian and the author of books such as Our Treacherous Hearts: Why Women Let Men Get Their Way. After devoting 20 years of her life to feminism, Ms. Coward says she no longer finds it relevant. In July, 1999, she told The Sunday Times she now feels "more concerned about what [is] happening to boys and men."

After watching her own husband and others struggle through the economic recession of the early 1990s, Ms. Coward says she realized feminism had nothing to say about men who didn't fit the patriarchal oppressor mould. "Around me, I saw fathers who were very hands-on and trying just as hard as women to work and be good parents," she says. "These men were making huge changes but they were being given little credit for their efforts."

While Ms. Coward says she has few worries about her daughter's future since today's "girls are buoyed up by a tremendous sense that whatever they do is new and positive," boys are a different story. "My son, Carl, 14, and his friends face a much more uncertain future. Boys are doing significantly less well at school than girls. The old roles are gone and my son and his peers are thrashing around in a new world in which they feel demoralized, the second sex."

Feminism was never supposed to be about beating up on little boys. When astute social commentators such as these begin warning it has come to this, it's time to give the matter serious consideration.


Our Chairman appeals for help for Donna. Non-PC journalists face a bleak future. She is now out of work. See


We want your baby

Press Release - Immediate 8:00 p.m., August 31, 2001

Contact: Edgar J. Steele, Attorney at Law tel:  (208) 265-4153

102 S. Fourth Ave., Suite C fax: (208) 265-5329

Sandpoint, Idaho 83860 email:


MISSOULA, MONTANA - First, they took her three young girls on an anonymous and unverifiable phone call that one looked kind of sick.  Then they moved heaven and earth, trying desperately to take the baby she bore a month later, though it was several states out of their jurisdiction.  Then they had her arrested and thrown in a Montana jail for "kidnapping" her own children. Now, she is about to give birth to her fifth child and they are trying to snatch it, too, after which they want to lock her and her husband away in prison for a long, long time.

Pretty serious stuff.  Must be a modern Bonnie and Clyde.  "How many people have they killed?" would be a logical question.  Well....none, actually. What have they done wrong?  Their most serious crime:  they loved their children. Their biggest mistake:  they trusted that truth would find a way.

Ruth Christine whiles away her time in a Missoula, Montana jail, while Oregon officials move to have her extradited to stand trial on charges that she helped to kidnap her own children.  Ruth is counting the days until delivery of her next child, too - anytime during the next couple of weeks. Oregon's Services to Children and Families (SCF) has had its counterpart in Montana, Child Protection Services (CPS), pay a call on Ruth and her doctor yesterday.  Nobody is to be allowed into the delivery room except their people.  Immediately upon birth, the baby is to be taken from Ruth and handed over to Oregon. No cuddling. No breast feeding. No bonding. No kidding. Edgar J. Steele, an attorney based in Northern Idaho, with offices in

Ill17 p9

California, has agreed to take the lead in representing Ruth and Brian Christine in what has become a modern-day David and Goliath story of citizens against a government seemingly out of control.

"They just refused to play ball," said Steele from his office in Sandpoint, Idaho.  "They must have seemed like easy marks, apparent itinerants living in a bus with their three little girls, parked not far from the public library in Grants Pass, Oregon."

Ruth and Brian had chosen to spend a few years traveling with their young family and earning a modest income from his internet-based business dealings.  He would use public-access terminals, like those found in public libraries, to conduct business.

Apparently, somebody in Grants Pass didn't think that was right, so he or she called authorities to say that one of the little girls "looked dehydrated."  She did look a bit under the weather, truth be told. It was hot, being midsummer, and the little girl was just getting over an illness. When authorities arrived, they found she had a bandaid on her forehead where she had bumped her head while playing.  That was enough.

By the end of the day, Brian had been hauled off and booked for "child endangerment," the three girls taken by armed deputies to a foster home and Ruth left dazed, penniless and 8 months pregnant, alone and confused in the converted bus which had served as the family home for the past two years.

Once Brian was released, he and Ruth chose to fight the legal system on their own, spurning the offer of a county-paid public defender. They did all the wrong things, according to the system, just as people often do when they dare to represent themselves in a courtroom. They didn't realize the stakes that were involved. They believed that eventually truth would find a way and they would get their children back.  They were wrong.

Along the way, Ruth traveled home to Indiana to have her baby. She eventually left baby Olivia behind with her mother and returned to Oregon to help Brian in the struggle to regain custody of their three little girls.

"We want Olivia, too," said the Oregon officials, and began a marathon court proceeding designed to have the baby taken from its grandmother, who had been appointed its legal guardian, and brought to Oregon to be placed with a foster home. Only three days ago, the Indiana judge that had become embroiled in the struggle laid down the law:  Indiana refuses to allow Oregon to have baby Olivia.

About a month ago, Oregon made it clear to Ruth and Brian that they were never to see their children again, as they were about to be adopted out. Desperate, the couple allegedly plotted to take their girls and run away. They were tracked down in Montana, turned in by those they considered friends. While Ruth sits in a Missoula jail, Brian awaits extradition to Oregon from his cell in Billings, on the other side of the state, destined to stand trial on a host of criminal charges stemming from the alleged "kidnapping."

Meanwhile, though the couple's newest baby is about to be born in Montana, Oregon has convinced Montana authorities to seize that child upon birth and transport it to Oregon to be adopted out with the three older Christine girls.

Steele pledges that the baby will not be taken without a legal struggle. "Nor will the three older girls be adopted out to strangers without a pitched battle of epic proportions," said Steele. "This case represents the modern trend of Big Brother come to life in America. We have to stop it here or there will never be any stopping government from taking anybody's child for any reason."

"The criminal charges will be the toughest," said Steele. Though the Christines' alleged acts were born of desperation about never seeing their little girls again, the system just won't allow that as a justification. In a very real sense, the system drove them crazy, and now it wants to lock them up for doing the very things it is itself guilty of having driven them to do. This isn't right and I hope that we can get a jury that sees things that way. Meanwhile, we have our work cut out, just keeping the kids from being placed permanently out of reach while we deal with the criminal charges."

While Steele is providing his legal services pro bono (for free), he notes that there will be considerable costs to expended in the Christines' defense, nonetheless, and asks that donations be directed to the Christine Defense Fund, PO Box 1255, Sagle, Idaho 83860.  Donations can be made via credit card over the Internet by logging on to and directing donations to, with a notation for the Christine Defense Fund.

A Different Kind Of Drug War

Drugging America's School Children

- Tom DeWeese < received 29aug01

There's a different kind of drug war going on that doesn't get the kind of attention as the one in the streets of America. In fact, those who are involved in a massive program of drug distribution are highly regarded and very well paid. They are our nation's teachers and the legions of "counselors" who have invaded our schools. Their victims, like the street drug pusher, are the children who will be returning to school after Labor Day.

With considerable irony, many of these children will pass signs on their way to school that proudly declare that they are entering "a drug-free zone." The only problem is that twelve percent of all American boys between six and 14 have been diagnosed with "attention deficit" syndrome. They all take medications that share the same characteristics as methamphetamine and cocaine. They and others add up to an estimated seven million school children who are doped up to the eyeballs in this manner.

Other medications are prescribed for yet another syndrome called "hyper-activity." This can constitute nothing more than being fidgety or noisy.

It really doesn't matter what kind of behavior a child displays in class. If a teacher thinks they are a problem for any reason, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders* (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association, has a list of more than 300 syndromes that easily cover the situation. Twenty years ago, the DSM only listed just over a hundred syndromes. Apparently, the entire nation is filled with crazed children and adults, all requiring sedation.

[* ]

The truth, as many parents discover to their horror, is that since 1965 the role of the teacher as the dispenser of discipline in the classroom has ceased. Children no longer are concerned about any rules of behavior because any real discipline is virtually non-existent in our schools. It has been replaced with parents who prefer a good lawsuit to a well-behaved child. Then, too, teaching methods have changed dramatically downgrading the teacher to a mere "facilitator" who allows students to learn on their own or be taught by others in their classroom.

The result is schools that are more like psychiatric hospital wards than places where one can actually learn anything. Thus, the need to drug any child who can't be conventionally controlled or the child who cannot concentrate sufficiently due, as often as not, to the distractions of unruly students.

The situation has long since become so bad that in 2000 there were lawsuits filed in California and New Jersey accusing Novartis Pharmaceuticals of conspiring to create a "novel medical diagnosis" (attentional deficit hyperactivity disorder) and then cashing in on it thanks to the fear it created among parents. The drug of choice is Ritalin. When ADHPD became an official disorder in 1987, there has been an explosion of prescriptions. In 1995, physicians wrote six million Ritalin prescriptions for children and adolescents.

Last year, in testimony before congress by the US Drug Enforcement Administration it was revealed that Ritalin has the potential to cause psychological and physical dependence. To put it another way, addiction! After a child has been on Ritalin for awhile, trying to get him or her off the medication can lead to "apathy, long periods of sleep, irritability, depression, and disorientation."

Ill17 p10

Hallucinations, convulsions, and even death can result from an overdose.

Speaking for the DEA, however, Rogene Waite said that Ritalin is still considered safe when prescribed for medical reasons. The only problem is that teachers are not physicians, nor are school counselors, the people most likely to "spot the problem" and move it up the chain of command until mom and dad are told their child needs to be drugged.

The other "side affect" of Ritalin and comparable drugs such as Prozac, is the fact that virtually all of the students who showed up at school and began shooting their classmates and the occasional teacher were taking these drugs. Eric Harris of Columbine High School fame was taking Luvoc, an antidepressant. T.J. Solomon who wounded six classmates at Heritage High School was on Ritalin. Shawn Cooper who fired off two shotgun rounds in Notus, Idaho, was also on Ritalin. Kip Kinkel was on both Ritalin and Prozac!

Even parents who want to get their child off of these so-called treatments find they are often blocked by the school bureaucracy. When Jill and Michael Carroll of Albany, NY, grew fearful of the side affects of Ritalin on their seven-year-old son, the Department of Social Services filed charges against them for educational neglect! They were told their son could be taken away from them unless they complied. This isn't an isolated case; it goes on all the time.

The parent who finds their child targeted for mandatory drugging needs to be prepared to fight back with every resource at their disposal. It used to be the worst thing that might happen to your kid at school was a scraped knee.

Today's schools are now places where your child can be found to be suffering from any one of a laundry list of so-called psychological syndromes and required to join the millions of others on a drug program that may keep things humming in the classroom, but may also produce long-term mental and psychological damage.

- Tom DeWeese is President of the American Policy Center. He is an advocate for individual liberty, free enterprise, property rights and back-to-basics education. For over thirty years Tom has fought against government oppression as a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. The DeWeese Report, is the American Policy Center's available via... < .


Ireland to London

12th September 2001

The Right Honourable Ken Livingstone                                       

The Lord Mayor of London


Dear Lord Mayor,

It has been brought to my attention that you have recently launched an initiative intended to develop a strategy for London on the issue of domestic violence. Having accessed information on this initiative on the internet I am appalled that you should be party to an initiative on domestic violence which is based on an outdated and discredited paradigm. This initiative is certain to fail in its stated objectives of preventing and reducing domestic violence as it perpetuates the myth that women are the only victims and men the only perpetrators. Perpetuating such dishonest anti-man myths, rather than dealing with the causes of conflict within families in an honest and balanced manner, will only increase tensions within families.

Amen's experience and all reliable research show that domestic violence is broadly a 50/50 phenomenon. Since setting up Amen in December 1997 we have been contacted by in excess of 25,000 men and concerned members of their families from all over Ireland as well as the UK, including London. In Ireland, recent research, carried out for the Marriage and Relationship Counselling Services (MRCS), showed that women are, in fact, more likely than men to perpetrate domestic violence. This report, based on a survey of 530 clients of MRCS, found that where domestic violence occurs mutual violence accounts for 33% of cases, female perpetrated violence accounts for 41% and male perpetrated violence for 26%. It should be noted that the majority (59%) of those interviewed were women and also that the vast majority of women (85%) and men (94%) agreed with their partner's response to this question, suggesting that the self reported prevalence is quite reliable. The Department of Health and Children has also carried out research, to be launched shortly, which will also vindicate the MRCS research and the experience of Amen.  These findings concur with results from all other independent reliable two-sex studies and surveys carried out in the UK, Canada and the USA. (Details are available on the Amen website ).

Studies which portrayed men as predominately perpetrators were not independent, neutral, balanced two-sex studies. They were all predicated on the assumption that men are the aggressors and women the victims; were based on interviews with women only; did not make any attempt to establish the views or experiences of men and were all carried out by or for people or organisations with a feminist ethos, and a vested or ideological interest in promoting a distorted view of men as inherently evil and violent and responsible for all domestic disharmony. Hardly surprising therefore that such studies wrongly portray 'men as the aggressors in the vast majority of cases'. Domestic violence is not just a  "women's issue". It is a social issue affecting men, women and children and needs to be examined in this context, otherwise it will continue to do damage to family systems and create even bigger division within families.

It is true that most of the recorded complaints of domestic violence are made by women. However, the failure by men to complain to the authorities does not mean that men are not also suffering abuse in the home.  Over the years society has come to accept that women in abusive situations in the home must be empowered to speak out about their plight and seek assistance. However it is still not socially acceptable for men to admit that they are being abused in the home. Men do not report the fact that they are being abused because they know that if they do they will meet with ridicule, disbelief and rejection. They will be described as 'wimps', told that 'big boys don't cry' and advised to 'take it on the chin like a man'. Should they seek legal redress they will be deemed to be perpetrators regardless of the evidence. Records of complaints are not a reliable indicator of the prevalence or nature of domestic violence. It is attitudes such as these which have kept this taboo subject under wraps for so long. The sexist anti-man nature of your 'initiative' will strengthen the barriers which prevent men from speaking out and seeking help. Despite the claims made in the document it is neither visionary nor inclusive.

On a more positive note I can tell you that the Irish Government and other statutory agencies have now accepted that the consensus on which domestic violence was based in the past was flawed. They now accept that men and women are equally likely to be victims and perpetrators of domestic violence and are in discussion with Amen on how to deal with the emerging truth. The old 'men are the perpetrators; women are the victims' stereotype has now been totally discredited in Ireland and other countries. It is difficult to believe that, in an allegedly sophisticated, modern society, the GLA and the rest of the political establishment in the UK are seeking to perpetuate such sexist, divisive and damaging policies and myths. While, at the moment, I cannot do an in-depth analysis of your document I note that on the cover you claim that 2 out of 3 men admit that they would use violence on their female partner in conflict situations. Since this is presented as representative of all men I would like to know the source of that claim. It certainly does not correspond with our experience of men.

As an alleged liberal and champion of human rights and civil liberties you would rightly condemn policies and propaganda which sought to condemn a person or imply guilt on the basis of the colour of their skin or ethnic background. But in your misguided political correctness you feel free to promote a sexist initiative which condemns men, simply because they are men. Most sycophants in the political establishment are not prepared to face truths which challenge their prejudices. It is much more convenient to wallow in trendy ignorance. Should you wish to meet representatives of Amen to discuss this matter in greater detail you can contact me at the above address.

Yours sincerely,   Mary T Cleary.

Ill17 p11

NHCR, Norway



IN the Nordic countries - each year, millions of crowns are squandered and thousands of innocent families are needlessly wrecked by dishonest social workers, incompetent child protection officers and secretive administrative (family) courts.

The Nordic Committee for Human Rights - NCHR - For the protection of Family Rights in the Nordic countries is an international organisation comprising of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. It was founded on November 30, 1996 at Christiansborg in Copenhagen, as a reaction against the prevalent cases where the social authorities in our different countries take children into public care, on what we deem as arbitrary grounds.

What is the NCHR? The Nordic Committee for Human Rights - NCHR - is an international, non-governmental organisation, free from politics and religion. It aims to:

* Strengthen respect for basic human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Nordic countries, based upon:

·    The UN Declaration of Human Rights;

·    The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

·    The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

* Act resolutely to ensure that civil servants who are found guilty of abuse of power or of violating their fellow citizen's private and family life be brought to justice or before disciplinary bodies.

 * To create public opinion in order to bring about changes in the present policies whereby residents in the Nordic countries appear to suffer unnecessary interference in their private and family life.

* Increase the rights and freedoms of private individuals and their families.

In pursuance of these aims the NCHR works with cases where children are being or have been removed, and are being kept from their families unnecessarily.

We try to provide help and advice for:

* Children who are being abused whilst in the care of the social authorities;

* Parents wrongly accused of offences against their children;

* Grandparents unfairly deprived of contact with their grandchildren by the social services;

* Any parents or children who need an intermediary when dealing with childcare professionals.

* Parents who, having placed their children in care on a voluntary and short-term basis, find that they are unable to get them back again (a too frequent occurrence when a single parent has a temporary health or other problem).



1 -  In the Nordic countries each year, thousands of caring and totally innocent families are NEEDLESSLY destroyed by the States' well intentioned but disastrous child care procedures.

2 -  In the Nordic countries each year, millions of crowns are squandered by dishonest and poorly supervised social workers inventing reasons to NEEDLESSLY take children into 'care'. The police and courts turn a blind eye to concealed adoptions and illegal trading with children.

3 -  In the Nordic countries each year the States are NEEDLESSLY creating thousands of juvenile delinquents who NEEDLESSLY grow up to be hardened criminals.

4 -  In the Nordic countries social services, today, are the most dangerous threat to private and family life our countries have ever known. The child-care systems in the Nordic countries must be overhauled as a matter of priority and an entirely new approach to procedures must be adopted.

·    Many child care authorities fail to carry out proper checks on foster parents.

·    Few children in care complete their secondary education. Some are even deprived of obligatory primary education and are mistakenly - or purposely - labelled by the social services as being retarded.

·    Children in care are far more likely to be abused than those living at home.

·    Events similar to Bjugn (Norway), the Bernt Stålbröst case (Sweden) and the Bernt Lindelöf case (Sweden) are still being repeated to the detriment of hundreds of families in the Nordic countries every day. Nothing has changed.

·    The Administrative Courts are bogged down with thousands of trumped-up cases brought by incompetent social workers fighting private battles against "unqualified parents who foolishly think they know best." Many social workers, because of their schooling, regard the family as being basically dangerous and an impediment for the development of the child.

·    A medical condition known as ADD-ADHD is responsible for a considerable amount of juvenile crime. Some child-care authorities recognise the condition but they prescribe the wrong remedy: the children are taken into 'care' in the mistaken belief that they are being 'emotionally abused' by their parents ... their first steps to a life of crime. In the Nordic countries each year, parents try to reclaim their children who have been abducted by the social authorities and flee to other countries.

·    At least 50% of the adult population know at least one competent family that has been needlessly wrecked by incompetent or dishonest social workers, aided and abetted by the Administrative Courts. For this reason, hundreds of thousands of parents are terrified of approaching the social services for help - even when they are desperate for the assistance that properly run social authorities should be able to offer.

·    The press, radio and television have failed to publish or to follow up systematically the thousands of accounts of social services involvement where things have gone drastically wrong - due to the activities of the social workers

- and where the victimisation of caring families is Orwellian and almost beyond belief.

·    In the Nordic countries today, a lot of people have lost confidence in the social services. Those who still believe that the Nordic states have the right formula for protecting children at risk are completely out of touch with reality. The truth is that the present systems in the Nordic countries are woefully inadequate and are, in fact, responsible for more abused children than any other source of abuse.

·    The European Court of Human Rights declared admissible the complaint of Chief Dr. Bernt Lindelöf, (C.L., B.L., E.L. and H.L. against Sweden) who was accused by the social services of sexually abusing his daughter who was suffering from Rhett's syndrome. The handicapped child was unnecessarily separated from her family and placed in foster care. The Administrative Courts all found in favour of the social workers' actions against the family. On June 20, 2000, Sweden reached a "Friendly Settlement" of 2,1 million SEK with the family.

 ·    The European Court of Human Rights found Finland guilty of violation of Family Rights in the Case of K & T v. Finland for taking the newborn baby into public care in its verdict dated April 27, 2000 and its Grand Chamber decision of June 12, 2001.

 The verdicts of the European Court of Human Rights have not changed the practices of the social services and the Administrative Courts in the Nordic countries.

Family abuse BY THE NORDIC STATES is a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Unnecessary interventions into people's private and family lives are not necessary in civilised, democratic societies (Article 8).

 Family abuse BY THE NORDIC STATES is a breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Children have the right to their families and the right to be protected from economic exploitation. (Articles 16 and 32).

 Family abuse BY THE NORDIC STATES is therefore not acceptable!

The NCHR hereby call upon The 2001 World Congress On Family

Ill17 p12

Law And The Rights Of Children And Youth to demand that the governments of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden must adopt the principles governing family life in the majority of the European nations and the world at large where Family - the cornerstone of society - is protected by law and the principles of closeness and subsidiarity are guidelines for social work.

Olofstorp, September 14, 2001

Ruby Harrold-Claesson Attorney-at-law

President of the NCHR 

Tillbaka till Huvudsidan

Till Artiklar .


.... the fate of children taken away from both parents by the social "services". I agree that modern feminism is part of the problem, with its belief e.g. in Freud, which has provided them with a terrible weapon, because Freud is a swindler and everything in the field of psycho-analysis/psycho-dynamic psychology is totally anti-scientific. Have you read Richard Webster's book "Why Freud was wrong"? - Anyway, as far as people's motives are concerned, they are probably partly the same in any hysterical trend, be it fear of witches, belief in communism, nazism, or social "experts", namely a combination of: being part of a popular trend, need of something to believe in, need of attention, and dough. It ought to have been foreseen; with so many thousands of social workers, psychologists, pedagogues and do-gooders, and in societies which have too much money to squander of speculative social construction, it was probably bound to lead to hyper-activity. Have you, by any chance, read the article I have published on our web-site called "The Attitude of social professions involved in the child protection sector" in our section Articles on our English page?


To return to "motives": I suppose you know about Stanley Milgram's famous study of one way of getting people to do whatever the authorities order them to?

Stanley Milgram (1974): Obedience to authority: An experimental view New York: Harper and Row

Of course that does not apply directly to the question of what motivates feminist activists in general and in the first place. I should nevertheless say it is relevant, since once they get into this line of business they have no option but to continue if they don't want to be thrown out. Especially in Sweden, but also in Norway, these feminists with their hobby-horses are solidly represented not only in the social services but in government departments and courts and many other places of power.

Marianne Skanland       NCHR



preliminary report

22 September 2001 19:52

Thanks to everyone who attended the protest on 20 September.

Particular thanks to our fearless National Protest Leader, Mark Harris, for all the preparations and media briefings.  Matthew Mudge did a fantastic job, and on the day, made the Equal Parenters' presence felt.  He set up a table in front of the Congress building and set out materials from the various organizations in the EQUAL PARENTING COALITION. He had prepared EQUAL  PARENTING purple lapel ribbons - all v. professional, thank you so much Matthew.

Anson Allen brought the public address system and the judge's costume.  Peter Weaving played the part of the judge - a visual that was mentioned by many of the overseas visitors.  He and Margaret McClaren attended the protest despite having had a hard couple of  days in court securing a shared residence order.  They were both exhausted after the hours of preparation and court room ordeal, yet they still made the effort to attend.

Michael Cox and many other prominent campaigners came along way carrying banners bearing polite but powerful messages.  These are the ones that do us good - the disrespectful ones do the opposite, by the way, believe me!

Forgive me for not mentioning everyone, but this email is already too long, and I'm barely started.  You were ALL brilliant!  I was especially grateful to my wife, Christine, for supporting the protesters outside while I attended the conference itself.  And it was super to have the representatives from MATCH.  I can't stress enough how important it is for the excluded mums to come out and show that this is not just a male issue.

Oliver Cyriax, veteran campaigner for the Cause, was a key member of the protest delegation.  He handed out 200+ information papers to conference delegates.



Yes, yes, yes, yes!  This conference was attended by top family court judges and lawyers from all over the world.  Most significantly, it was attended by the UK's top family court judges.  The impression our judiciary were trying to give was that the UK was the model to follow.  Without our protest outside, and our influence inside the conference, the overseas guest would have left with the clear impression that the UK had it right!!!

The protest was mentioned at numerous conference sessions.  Many overseas  judges came up to me and were fully supportive.  The conference delegates were overwhelmingly supportive.  There was comment about how well behaved the protesters had been.  We got great media coverage locally on BBC and in the press, better even than the event itself.

I put our case at every opportunity, many times by addressing the meeting.  Our position was supported robustly by a Canadian judge who spoke of the importance of enforcing contact orders with determination.  "Judges are too soft, she said.  I tell them to bring their toothbrush, cause they're going to jail next time. My contact orders are to be obeyed.  Everyone knows it, so they obey them!"  Pretty obvious stuff, isn't it, but not to our judges.....yet!!!

The crowning glory came at the final session (yesterday, Friday) I attended, which the Chair, another Canadian Judge, opened by referring

(a) to Maureen Freely's article [p6] "When can I see my children?" in The Times (Sept 17) and (b) to the protest outside.  He said that they had come thinking that the UK was the model to follow, but clearly it was not working to everyone's satisfaction.  Wow!  Did we ever make an impact!

Sending me as a delegate was a major expense for EPC £750 approx. in direct expenses which it cannot afford; but was it ever worth it! (Bear in mind, EPC does not charge a sub. nor do we get a penny in public funding. Your kind donation, if you make one today, will help make sure we can continue our good work at HQ.  We are v. much in the red on this, so please don't assume someone else will donate instead of you.)

I had the chance to speak personally to virtually every one of our top family judges.  Lord Justice Wall told me EPC's was one of the most powerfully argued submissions in response to MAKING CONTACT WORK.  It had impressed the committee and would be influential in their recommendations.

I was thanked at the end by the conference organizers for registering for the conference and participating fully in the discussions.  What a turnaround!  When I first arrived, they had people follow me around to watch my every  move!  By the time I left they were telling me how grateful they were for EPC's participation in the conference.



It was disappointing that other like-minded organizations did not send a delegate to this conference, nor members of their leadership even to join the protesters on the outside. What an opportunity missed!  The impression given is that this is not a big problem.  It is only a few cases!  That is what they believe.

If you want to see this problem fixed within the foreseeable future, you simply have to come to protests.  I know not everyone is  comfortable with protesting, but it is clear to me that they are making  their mark.  How fast they work is directly proportional to their size, it's that simple.

There is much more I could say, but will save it for my full report which will follow in due course.  I wanted to get something out to you all on my return from Bath (late last night).

Once again, congratulations and many thanks to all those who attended.  If you could not attend, please send a donation to help offset expenses.

Best wishes, Tony

Ill17 p13


Speaking Out for Children of Broken Homes

Direct Line 020 7590 2701 - mobile: 07768 366 100


"Children need BOTH Parents!"


send to 38-40 Gloucester Road, London, SW7 4QU - THANK YOU.



Family law in disarray

 - Julian Fitzgerald, 22sep01

The 2001 World Congress on Family Law and the Rights of Children and Youth (Sept 20-22) was meant to take place concurrently with the United Nations Special Session on the Rights of Children in New York, now abandoned for obvious reasons. It opened with Lady Butler-Sloss, head of the Family Division, congratulating British lawyers on what a fine job they are doing. Outside the conference venue, a gathering of around thirty protesters, mothers, fathers and grandparents who have gone through the mill of British family justice, are waving placards and shouting "Children Need Both Parents." They stand as a noisy reminder of the failures of the British family court system: their message to the 500 conference attendees, from 38 countries, ranging from Vietnam and Nigeria to China and the United States is "do not base your system on ours."

David Truex, chair of the UK host committee for the congress, is an Australian lawyer now practising family law in the UK. In our interview he emphasises that parental responsibility, currently extended in the UK only to married fathers and unmarried fathers whose application is accepted by the courts, should be extended to all fathers, wed or unwed, as a matter of right.

The burning issue for British parents is that courts should uphold their rights of contact with their children. Mr Truex explains that this congress covers a wide range of equally critical issues, including the rights of children in war- and poverty-stricken lands.

However, Professor Bolaji Owasanoye of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and Human Development explains that from the viewpoint of a country which has daily experience of these evils, the thinking is the exact opposite, stating "there is an assumption that children's rights have nothing to do with parents, but in our country the aim is to strengthen parents' ability to give their children rights." He continues: "the job, the responsibility of public institutions like courts and social welfare offices is to assist parents to carry out their God-given responsibility of bringing up children. These institutions are not supposed to hijack this responsibility."

As jurists attending the conference pass between protesters outside, they express wide accord with them on almost all the grievances at failures in the system raised. A leading English family barrister snickers quietly at a poster characterising one of his judicial colleagues as "The Keeper of the Asylum." Over the megaphone, Matthew Mudge, a family rights activist from Cardiff, enjoys fierce support as he quotes a series of politicians and opinion formers. "'A child needs the care and attention of both parents,' says Tony Blair. 'The distress and damage done to children when parents separate can be reduced if they retain strong and loving bonds with both parents' states Paul Boateng. Well, Mr Blair, well, Mr Boateng, we agree with you. What are you doing about it?"

 Implementation is key, both sides agree. As those inside the conference embed themselves in the minutiae of bureaucratic procedure and fine legal points, parents outside who have experience of the rough end of the law demand equal parenting, a presumption that children will be able to spend up to 50% of the time with each parent where parents are separated and fail to agree upon the key issues. To them, without fundamental family rights, the family court system which results in "150,000 divorce orphans every year in England and Wales" will simply continue with business as usual unless judicial discretion comes within a framework of clear parental rights. Even Jack Straw, when Home Secretary, has said "too many people in judicial positions protect their inefficiency and sometimes their incompetence under the cloak of judicial discretion." As Matthew Mudge puts it "going from a seven-day-a-week parent to a once a fortnight parent can depend, quite arbitrarily, on the whim of the judge."

When the leading Australian judge Stewart Fowler, also co-chair of the Bath Family Law Congress and his colleague, New York Family Law judge Marjory D. Fields are interviewed, they assert the principle of the "paramount interests of the child" as the justification for judges taking decisions out of parents hands when they fail to agree. Judge Fowler points out that the preambular passages to the United Convention on the Rights of the Child mention the special position of parents in relation to their children. Judge Fields is disparaging about the concept of children's rights to both parents, saying that the issue is not rights but responsibilities, although she is unable to clarify how parental responsibility is to be exercised if one does not see or care for one's child and this remains in the gift of the judge. Earlier, however, David Truex has expressed interest in the favourable evidence beginning to accrue from state legislatures, such as Oklahoma in the US, where presumptive equal joint custody legislation was introduced in 1999. As more data feeds through, he says, we will be able to begin to form an opinion about whether such legislation can work in practice. In the meantime, few seem to be addressing the fate of the millions of children and parents who have already lost each other through the present system.


The Outing of Radical Feminist Organisations

For quite a while now, I have been saying to myself, that there must be some kind of stealth conspiracy at work here, and there is, if you look for it. Our society which has served us well for the past near two millennia, has been turned on its head, by rejecting all which has been morally correct, decent and just. As decent law abiding men/fathers who have suffered injustices through our courts systems both civil and family, we have all come to realise by now, that this system, which has been conditioning us all from childhood, is nothing more than a well orchestrated con trick, engineered to be biased against heterosexual males and fathers, all in a space of a mere fifty years.

How has this been allowed to happen? We have allowed it happen by discarding our strong religious beliefs, which also gave us our moral guidance. It's just like that well know saying; "whilst throwing out the baby's bath water we have also thrown out the baby". Since the beginning of our religious decline, the radical feminists have been hard at work in destroying the nuclear family, and in turn, they have managed to deny us all our human rights. In their next quest, they took on the last bastion of Patriarchy, our religion. According to our research, this too they have managed to infiltrate. They did this by gaining an advantageous foothold in our Churches, where they are allowed to tinker. They now dictate their debauched way of life, forcing us to accept such abominations of the likes of abortion on demand and same sex marriages.

For quite a while now, I together with others such as Ivor, Brian, and Karl, have researched organisations of the likes of The British Council, It has a annual budget of 400 million to fund projects which promote leftist and radical feminist ideology; The Howard League, with their "laissez-faire" attitude towards female crimes, but staunch on domestic violence, which according to them is ONLY perpetrated by men onto women; The Economic & Social Research Council, with an annual budget of £72 million which helps fund radical feminist organisations, all having links to the Women National Commission, which happens to be a link to the Women Unit inside the Cabinet Office.

At present I am involved with others in the removal of a women's organisation within the Catholic Church which has links with an organisation "Churches Together in Britain and Ireland". This is a radical feminist church organisation which has done away with Our Lord Jesus Christ and replaced it with a woman called "Crista". They also support the abominations I have stated above. We are gaining

Ill17 p14

momentum day by day in achieving our objective, and once they have been removed we will move to the other Christian Churches which have been infiltrated with these demonic radfems.

At our last Conference, Ivor and myself expressed the importance of researching all these suspect organisations. To achieve this we need more people to be involved in research work. Guidance on what to research can be given by Ivor, Karl, Brian and myself. Since Ivor is heavily busy dealing with many different issues, the rest of us will be there to assist, to process and to record the research. - Anthony Pace.



America has enemies in countries on the other side of the world, with people who were raised from birth to be tough survivors.  It may be required for our soldiers to go there and fight them.  It must be acknowledged many of our youth are not prepared for this.

In previous generations a father was there to teach his children needed skills.  With babies dads did rough and tumble play, and pushed a constant stretching of abilities.  In adolescence they encouraged their children to participate and excel in sports, how to work hard, and the safe and proficient use of firearms.

Many American children do not have that today.  Pre-Sept 11 our country put little emphasis on keeping a father in a child's life.  Indeed family law for at least the last 30yrs has been set up to create homes without dads in them.  We all know how the federal government did this through welfare programs, and it continues today through family law.  The result is children raised in front of a TV watching cartoons, with none of the skills needed to survive in an area such as Afghanistan.

Anyone who has children, especially of high school age, should be giving a lot of consideration to this.  Can teens you have or know jump out of a hovering helicopter with a 100lb backpack, and march 20 miles?  And do it as a group with tight discipline?  That's what American teens may soon be asked to do.  And most will absolutely not be ready for it.

Even if this current crisis is peacefully resolved, as we pray will occur, the future certainly holds more dangers.  As such we must return to practices where children are prepared for the future by their fathers.

The place for this to begin is the reforming of family law.  There are numerous rules and practices used by your state's judges which actually force fit dads from their children's lives.  As we have found this is now happening to moms too.  Increasingly no parent in the United States can be secure from state intervention in the sacred relationship they have with their child.  Even married parents.

Childs Best Interest was formed earlier this year to address this.  We now have as members; moms, dads, step-parents, an elected official, an author, and grandparents.  We need more good persons.

Next year we will be submitting a number of legislative changes to state legislatures.  These bodies consists of many Honorable persons.  They are however forced into doing some things they would not like to.  This happens because special interests that pursue their own financial or ideological needs exert undue influence.

We must reverse the practices of the last 30yrs which created single parent households.  Children need to be raised with the input of both parents to be complete.  This is known to us, but not to those inside our courthouses.  They thwart the will of the people and legislature.  This is not tolerable when the result is children being injured and placed into harms way.

Very few persons today are protecting the right to raise children. 

Please consider joining with us in this most important task, which can be done through applications on our website.  For those not familiar with this issue, we have training programs available to inform parents of their rights under the state and United States Constitutions, and how to protect them.

May God Bless and protect our Children in the coming days. - Yolanda Rogers, CBI Secretary Fax/Voicemail (901)854-8314


Psychopaths and Judges

Hi Richard, .... The family courts provide wonderful opportunities for covert psychopaths, who may be entirely unaware of the secret hit they get from the exercise of power. Some may be quite aware of their own excitement, although their level of understanding of the reasons may be variable. Nor is this phenomenon limited to the family courts. Lord Chief Justice Goddard used to have seminal emissions when sentencing young men to death, a fact which only became widely known after his death as a result of the disclosures of one of his junior officials. Essentially, he was almost certainly a covert homosexual, excited by young men but unable to cope with that. In sentencing young men to death, he could marry his sexual excitement with his hatred of them for provoking that excitement. Something similar happens in the case of killer paedophiles who are sexually excited by children, and hate the children for, as they see it, "causing" that excitement. Hatred of attractive women ("Harlot!  Jezebel!") by some celibate priests followed the same pattern.

I have often thought the something similar of various kinds of therapist who set themselves the task of changing the internal lives of social predators, such as paedophiles and rapists. What could be a more ideal cover for sadistic behaviours than making a social predator, wriggling with denial, face the truth about himself? Life is full of paradoxes. Sometimes the potential of psychiatry in this regard reaches popular culture. In "Silence of the Lambs" the portrayal of Hannibal Lecter as a psychiatrist using insight as a sadistic weapon (e.g. his first meeting, in prison, with Clarice Starling) is a case in point.

In fact, I think it the case that supposedly high moral or religious standards can, in the hands of those not accustomed to introspection and self-knowledge, lead directly to sadism. The Spanish Inquisition was a case in point. Like you, I was a great admirer of Thomas More, until I discovered that his religious convictions, for which he ultimately paid with his life, had been responsible for the torture and execution of large numbers of heretics, who had failed to follow the orthodox Catholic line which he believed in. Remember, he was Lord Chancellor. That really shook me up, as I had been very taken by Bolt's "A Man For All Seasons", which was based on the eulogistic biography of More by William Roper, More's son-in-law, who was himself a very committed anti-heretic! It may be as well to make it clear that I certainly do not think this muddle was about Catholicism in particular. It is more about human folly, and about the application of doctrine in a ruthless manner. Perhaps we should not be surprised. On the one hand we have human provenance and our current position as top predator. On the other, we have the our capacity for developing ethical social systems and empathy with others. Is it any wonder that we sometimes end up using our comparatively massive cerebral cortex structures to combine the two?  Let us go and torture and kill the heretic and the unbeliever in the name of the God of Love. So it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut was wont to say. What I say, is that if there is a God, may he or she save us from our own confusion and hatreds.

Unfortunately, however, it may be impossible to avoid fighting people when they have created ethical systems (such as certain aspects of modern feminism) as a way of expressing their own aggression. How delightful to destroy someone by playing the innocent victim!  Or the "omnipotent victim", as Sean Kelly, with a characteristic felicity of expression, puts it. And it is also necessary to challenge the practices of the family courts in a concerted and organised way, which will inevitably sometimes cause embarrassment and pain to family court judges who thought they were acting with the best intentions, as Tony Coe, and anyone who actually gets to know these people, ultimately comes to realise. Understanding, however, is not a substitute for challenge and action. Indeed, an informed understanding should, in the current nightmare scenario, be a spur to challenge and action. Warmest regards, Peter Harvey <  5sep01


Peter: I think your analysis was very good. But I would like to add my voice to the others by way of constructive criticism. I feel that you seriously underestimate the

Ill17 p15

plain maliciousness of the system, something that needs to be taken seriously. I had an email conversation last year with a psychiatrist who dealt solely with psychopaths. I noted that it seemed to me that many of the people I was dealing with in the court system fit the diagnosis of psychopathy. This was her reply: "I am sure I know what you are talking about when you say the "court systems", yes, the "upper class" type psychopath works well within the domain of the court/law. You will also find them among the police and practicing as psychologists." The psychologist was pointing out, of course, that "privileged" psychopaths by virtue of education and class are attracted to certain professions in which they can cause pain under the guise of legality and get away with it. This is a factor that I think needs to be seriously taken into consideration. I suspect, from experience and the experience of others, this is not uncommon at all.

Second I think that you need to take into consideration the role of misandry on the part of feminists in enacting legislation and polluting the environment at large. Here is a link that illustrates the point. http:/ This is not the only article on the subject I have seen this week. There was another by a professor from Harvard complaining about a "skewed" report on violence against women in the JAMA. That report relates violence against boys. But in the JAMA that section of the report is totally omitted. Further, you should take a look at N.O.W.'s site and see their latest resolution to do with Family Courts. In short I think your analysis is far too kind with regards to Butler-Sloss and her ilk. You are attributing decency to people where there is little or non. Anecdotally, being in California, I know quite a few lawyers. San Francisco has more lawyers than the whole of Britain! Not one of them will have anything to do with family law and their comments about lawyers that do range from, "should be disbarred" to "The bitch is a spitting cobra!" I don't know one that has anything good to say about family law or lawyers that practice it. - Regards, Richard

[".... An important sub-class of our male rulers resemble psychopaths more closely than they resemble normal men ...." - Editorial in Ill Eagle 3, july99, on website at  - Ed]


George Gilder

Review of George Gilder, Men and Marriage, pub. Pelican Pub. Co., 1986, by Antonia.


Fascinating introduction to a crucial topic.

George Gilder has written an easy-to-read introduction to the underlying gender issues of our time. I am a British reader so it was sometimes difficult to picture some of the situations he was referring to; the level of discussion and debate on gender is less sophisticated in the British media than in the US, so any material from the US helps us understand our society better.

To readers who might be irritated by Gilder's assumptions and conclusions, I would say that he is talking about general underlying trends in human society, rather than what individuals choose to do. Like Steven Goldberg and others, he quite correctly says that exceptions to the norm should be accepted as exceptions to the norm, not pushed as the new norm (e.g. house-husbands).

Surely a liberal democracy should be able to accept this, but increasingly in Britain and the US people are unwilling to do this thanks to radical feminism, gay rights and some parts of the men's movement.

Gilder has so many uncomfortable but true insights which successful middle-class men and women should be forced to acknowledge if they are sincere about the welfare of society, as many of them profess to be by sporting the name 'liberal'. For example, 'in general, the successful woman demands that her man be even more successful than she is...Many men today deny that such pressures bother them. To declare enthusiasm for feminist ideals is almost a new mode of macho, a way to flaunt an invulnerable virility. Many will dismiss feminism as merely a matter of domestic logistics. These men do not feel threatened at work...Mention procreation and they talk about the population explosion...They profess delight (somewhat uneasily) with the new female sexual freedom. The personal experience and expectations of these men are real, long as everything goes reasonably right in their lives, the sexual revolution will affect them little. Other men do not fare so well...'

In other words, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with being a successful middle-class liberal, but such a person should stop assuming that everybody will want or be able to obtain their lifestyle. Until government policies accept this diversity family and social breakdown will continue.


More controversially:

'In a world where women do not say no, the man is never forced to settle down and make serious choices.' Hear hear. Too many women do not realise that their behaviour (being forward and then pretending that they are the victims of men) has a knock-on effect on the relations other women have with men, i.e. radical feminists and libertarians are creating a generation of useless irresponsible men.

'The facts of male homosexuality are also endlessly misrepresented and confused by the homosexual women who often speak for 'gay liberation'. Once a young man experiences the gay world - often joining it as others join a cult or a movement - the addiction may be very hard to break. The homosexual will seek to affirm his choice by finding others to join him in it.'

All this I can confirm from first-hand observation. He is dead right about women (lesbian or not) misrepresenting male homosexuality by naively romanticising it. It is mainly women who imagine that most gay men long to have 'faithful, exclusive long-term relationships'. They simply do not realise the harsh reality and so they are, by their sweet rhetoric, actually putting their sons at risk of being drawn into the gay underworld.

Thankfully Gilder also tells us that 'the job-market is not a zero-sum game with a limited number of jobs. Women's mass entry into the labour market has not caused rising male unemployment.' This from a conservative - so there is no excuse for not making this clear; there has been NO conspiracy against male jobs.

The link between sex and family life is very important for Gilder, but too many people are denying it. He goes so far as to say the following, which must have infuriated a lot of people but which again may shed light on such problems as eating disorders, dieting and wafer-thin supermodels, who are NOT feminine:

'If we break the tie between sexual intercourse and procreation, destroy the childhood memory of the nurturing and omnipotent mother, banish the mystique of the breasts and the womb and of the female curves and softness, we could remove as well much of the special attraction of heterosexual love. We may liberate men to celebrate, like the ancient Spartans, or the most extreme homosexuals today, a violent, misogynistic, and narcissistic eroticism.'

Read this book even if you don't think you'll agree with everything in it, because his intuitions are those of the silent majority.

You owe it to society if you are a middle-class liberal to acknowledge that this is what people think and feel, and that going too much against the grain will provoke bitter resentment. I worry that much of this resentment will be unthinkingly against women in general. It's not too late to acknowledge all these problems.

[I also strongly recommend Gilder's prescient Sexual Suicide, pub. Quadrangle 1973. He saw it all coming. - Ed]


Take back the campus

From  . in  April 17, 2001

Are you tired of male-bashing and victimology?

Have you had your fill of feminist "Ms./Information"?

Have you been misled by factually challenged professors?



Campus feminism is a kind of cult: as early as freshman orientation, professors begin spinning theories about how American women are oppressed under "patriarchy." Here is a list of the most common feminist myths. If you believe two or more of these untruths, you may need deprogramming.

Ill17 p16


1. Myth: One in four women in college has been the victim of rape or attempted rape.

Fact: This mother of all factoids is based on a fallacious feminist study commissioned by Ms. magazine. The researcher, Mary Koss, hand-picked by hard-line feminist Gloria Steinem, acknowledges that 73 percent of the young women she counted as rape victims were not aware they had been raped. Forty-three percent of them were dating their "attacker" again.

Rape is a uniquely horrible crime. That is why we need sober and responsible research. Women will not be helped by hyperbole and hysteria. Truth is no enemy of compassion, and falsehood is no friend.

(Nara Schoenberg and Sam Roe, "The Making of an Epidemic," Toledo Blade, October 10, 1993; and Neil Gilbert, "Examining the Facts: Advocacy Research Overstates the Incidence of Date and Acquaintance Rape," Current Controversies in Family Violence eds. Richard Gelles and Donileen Loseke, Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications, 1993, pp.120-132; Robin Warshaw (with Ms. Foundation) I Never Called It Rape: The Ms. Report -- With afterward by Mary Koss, New York: Harper Perennial, 1988; Mary Koss, et al "The Scope of Rape," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1987, Vol.55, pp.162-170; Mary Koss, et al "Stranger and Acquaintance Rape," Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1988, Vol.12, pp.1/24.Campus Crime and Security, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1997. *According to this study, campus police reported 1,310 forcible sex offenses on U.S. campuses in one year. That works out to an average of fewer than one rape per campus.)

2. Myth: Women earn 75 cents for every dollar a man earns.

Fact: The 75 cent figure is terribly misleading. This statistic is a snapshot of all current full-time workers. It does not consider relevant factors like length of time in the workplace, education, occupation, and number of hours worked per week. (The experience gap is particularly large between older men and women in the workplace.) When economists do the proper controls, the so-called gender wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.

(Essential reading: Women's Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America, by Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Christine Stolba, published by the Independent Women's Forum and the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. 2000.)

3. Myth: 30 percent of emergency room visits by women each year are the result of injuries from domestic violence.

Fact: This incendiary statistic is promoted by gender feminists whose primary goal seems to be to impugn men. Two responsible government studies report that the nationwide figure is closer to one percent. While these studies may have missed some cases of domestic violence, the 30% figure is a wild exaggeration.

(National Center for Health Statistics, National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1992 Emergency Department Summary , Hyattsville, Maryland, March 1997; and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments: Washington, D.C., August 1997.)

4. Myth: The phrase "rule of thumb" originated in a man's right to beat his wife provided the stick was no wider than his thumb.

Fact: This is an urban legend that is still taken seriously by activist law professors and harassment workshoppers. The Oxford English Dictionary has more than twenty citations for phrase "rule of thumb" (the earliest from 1692), but not a single mention of beatings, sticks, or husbands and wives.

(For a definitive debunking of the hoax see Henry Ansgar Kelly, "Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw of the Husband's Stick," The Journal of Legal Education, September 1994.)

5. Myth: Women have been shortchanged in medical research.

Fact: The National Institutes of Health and drug companies routinely include women in clinical trials that test for effectiveness of medications. By 1979, over 90% of all NIH-funded trials included women. Beginning in 1985, when the NIH's National Cancer Center began keeping track of specific cancer funding, it has annually spent more money on breast cancer than any other type of cancer. Currently, women represent over 60% of all subjects in NIH-funded clinical trials.

(Essential reading: Cathy Young and Sally Satel, "The Myth of Gender Bias in Medicine," Washington, D.C.: The Women's Freedom Network, 1997.)

6. Myth: Girls have been shortchanged in our gender-biased schools

Fact: No fair-minded person can review the education data and conclude that girls are the have-nots in our schools. Boys are slightly ahead of girls in math and science; girls are dramatically ahead in reading and writing. (The writing skills of 17-year-old boys are at the same level as 14-year- old girls.) Girls get better grades, they have higher aspirations, and they are more likely to go to college.

(See: Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women, Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education, June 2000.)

7. Myth: "Our schools are training grounds for sexual harassment... boys are rarely punished, while girls are taught that it is their role to tolerate this humiliating conduct."

(National Organization of Women, "Issue Report: Sexual Harassment," April 1998.)

Fact: "Hostile Hallways," is the best-known study of harassment in grades 8-11. It was commissioned by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in 1993, and is a favorite of many harassment experts. But this survey revealed that girls are doing almost as much harassing as the boys. According to the study, "85 percent of girls and 76 percent of boys surveyed say they have experienced unwanted and unwelcome sexual behavior that interferes with their lives."

(Four scholars at the University of Michigan did a careful follow-up study of the AAUW data and concluded: "The majority of both genders (53%) described themselves as having been both victim and perpetrator of harassment -- that is most students had been harassed and had harassed others." And these researchers draw the right conclusion: "Our results led us to question the simple perpetrator-victim model...".) (See: American Education Research Journal, Summer 1996.)

8. Myth: Girls suffer a dramatic loss of self-esteem during adolescence.

Fact: This myth of the incredible shrinking girls was started by Carol Gilligan, professor of gender studies at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Gilligan has always enjoyed higher standing among feminist activists and journalists than among academic research psychologists. Scholars who follow the protocols of social science do not accept the reality of an adolescent "crisis" of confidence and "loss of voice." In 1993, American Psychologist reported the new consensus among researchers in adolescent development: "It is now known that the majority of adolescents of both genders successfully negotiate this developmental period without any major psychological or emotional disorder [and] develop a positive sense of personal identity. ..."

(Anne C. Petersen et al. "Depression in Adolescence," American Psychologist February 1993; see also, Daniel Offer, and Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, "Debunking the Myths of Adolescence: Findings from Recent Research," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, November 1992.)

9. Myth: Gender is a social construction.

Fact: While environment and socialization do play a significant role in human life, a growing body of research in neuroscience, endocrinology, and psychology over the past 40 years suggests there is a biological basis for many sex differences in aptitudes and preferences. In general, males have better spatial reasoning skills; females better verbal skills. Males are greater risk takers; females are more nurturing.

Of course, this does not mean that women should be prevented from pursuing their goals in any field they choose; what it does suggest is that we should not expect parity in all fields. More women than men will continue to want to stay at home with small children and pursue careers in fields like early childhood education or psychology;

Ill17 p17

men will continue to be over-represented in fields like helicopter mechanics and hydraulic engineering.

Warning: Most gender scholars in our universities have degrees in fields like English or comparative literature -- not biology or neuroscience. These self-appointed experts on sexuality are scientifically illiterate. They substitute dogma and propaganda for reasoned scholarship.

(For a review of recent findings on sex differences see a special issue of The Scientific American [Special Quarterly Issue] "Men: The Scientific Truth," Summer 1999.)

10. Myth: Women's Studies Departments empowered women and gave them a voice in the academy.

Fact: Women's Studies empowered a small group of like-minded careerists. They have created an old-girl network that is far more elitist, narrow and closed than any of the old-boy networks they rail against. Vast numbers of moderate or dissident women scholars have been marginalized, excluded and silenced.

(Essential reading: everything by Camille Paglia; Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge--Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies; and Christina Hoff Sommers--Who Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women.)

**Should you encounter an item of Ms/information in one of your classes, in a textbook, or a women's center "fact" sheet, let us know. We will print it on our campus website,, correct it with accurate information, and politely inform the source of the mistake.

We (IWF) are a women's group dedicated to restoring reason, common sense and open discussion to the campus. [See Ill Eagle 16 p4 and ]


Not all Nazis were bad, surely?

 - Karl Glasson

Many of us in the men's movements see feminism as very much akin to Nazism. At the very least, both ideologies legitimate discrimination against individuals purely on the basis of their genetic makeup. And there are now laws which clearly discriminate against persons because of their male gender.

True; men are not being hauled off to gas chambers and exterminated by feminists, but they are discriminated against in nearly every important area of their lives - health, education, family, law. And men are currently being demonised, persecuted, prosecuted, ostracised and imprisoned simply when women accuse them.

There was certainly a considerable period of time during the 1930's when many good and kind Germans would have considered themselves to be Nazis. They swallowed Hitler's propaganda against the Jews, among other things, and they believed that they were supporting an ideology that was destined to do good for their country and for mankind.

And, in those earlier times, there was no way that the majority of these people even contemplated what might befall the Jews and how horrendously they were going to be treated by the very people that they were supporting.

Thus, for example, the Nazis of 1935 would have included amongst themselves thousands of good individuals who were conned into supporting the Nazi ideology.

Now, of course, (if they were still alive) few of these good and ordinary folk who supported Nazism would dream of supporting or condoning what Nazism most effectively, and especially in its homicidal essence, turned out to be.

They had simply - at that time - been overwhelmingly hoodwinked by a deceptive, racist propaganda machine.

And so it is that if you NOW asked these 'good' people, "Are you a Nazi?", they would reply No! And they would be telling the truth. For the realities of Nazism would by now have been shown to them.

When I was young, I once thought that I must be a communist - equality for all, and all that - until I discovered more about what communism actually meant, and how it went about achieving its aims.

Well, what we NOW know to be Nazism is not something that these good people EVER supported. They thought that they were Nazis - but they weren't!

I thought that I was a communist, but I wasn't. And the same is true for women who call themselves feminists today.

They might as well call themselves Nazis (bar the gas chambers etc) for by calling themselves feminists they ally themselves to a repulsive ideology that not only discriminates appallingly against the male gender but which also has been shown to be promoted by particularly dishonourable and self-serving groups of women who have done little but lie and deceive.

Thus, for example, so many 'so-called' academic feminists have now been caught manufacturing dishonest 'research' findings and distorting or hiding others to support their deceitful, fraudulent claims, for YEARS, that they really should be sacked and publicly shamed for their incompetence and mendacity.

And media feminists have been shown to have colluded, for years, in shielding important truths while specifically headlining deceptive reports in their attempts to fuel continuously a hatred of the male gender.

These dishonourable, self-serving manipulative groups of women are no different in essence from those who ran the Nazi propaganda machines. They are little but bare-faced liars, and they are full of hatred toward others simply because of their genetic makeup.

The catalogue of feminist deceits is astonishing, is still growing, and is being exposed every day. And the evidence that this has occurred on a massive scale is OVERWHELMING.

Thus, when a woman today claims that she is a feminist, she backs a hysterical, vindictive, corrupt and divisive ideology in exactly the same way as would someone who TODAY is claiming to be a Nazi.

Once upon a time there were good Nazis, but when these good Nazis realised what Nazism actually meant, they stopped supporting Nazism.

Similarly, once upon a time there were good feminists, but those who continue to support feminism now, in the light of what we now know, are either remaining ignorant of what their fraudulent man-hating ideological 'leaders' have been up to for all these years, or they are as repulsively discriminatory and shallow as this website accuses them of being.

It is fortunate indeed that, unlike in the 1930's, the retrieval of archived information is now a relatively simple affair. And documented evidence of the nauseating and detestable fabrications and hate-mongering of feminist groups throughout the academic world, in the media, and in the government is not even hidden.

The upshot is that those who continue to support feminism are soon going to find themselves shamed in much the same way as were those who continued to support Nazism even while the archived evidence against it was collected and publicised.

And, as for those politicians, academics and media folk who continue to try to endorse this repulsive ideology in the face of all the evidence that exposes it, well, at the very least, their professional days are really and truly numbered. Their votes will disappear, their tenures will be severed, they will be condemned and dishonoured publicly with the evidence that stands against them and, it is my guess, that quite a few will actually be prosecuted for betraying their duties and the people who invested their trust in them.


Pilot's Crash into his home

- Associated Press, 29aug01

CONCORD, N.H., Aug. 28  A pilot whose small plane crashed into a house was the home's owner, a medical examiner said today, adding that it appeared that the crash was deliberate.

The pilot, Louis W. Joy III, was killed when his plane went into a dive and slammed into the home he shared with his wife and 8-year-old daughter, said the deputy chief medical examiner, Thomas Gilson. No one on the ground was injured when the single-engine Socata Trinidad struck the house on Saturday. The authorities said Mr. Joy's wife, Jo, who had obtained a restraining order against him the day before the crash, was staying at a hotel with her daughter when the crash occurred.

Ill17 p18

For days, investigators have picked through the ashes and wreckage  of Mr. Joy's home, his plane and his life  searching for what might have driven Mr. Joy, a successful business consultant and motivational speaker, to suicide.

On Monday, Judge William Drescher, who granted the restraining order, sealed the court documents in which Ms. Joy explained why she wanted the order. David Lauren, Jo Joy's lawyer, read a statement from his client in which she pleaded for privacy.


The Nightmare of Family Court

 - Stephen Baskerville

The ordeal of Mark Harris, the father sent to Pentonville prison for ten months for waving to his children, is not an aberration. It is part of a growing international trend whereby fathers (and sometimes mothers) have been arrested for sending their children birthday cards, calling them on the telephone, or seeing them in church.

Last year a father in New Hampshire was beaten to death by jail guards after being incarcerated without trial for allegedly missing a child support hearing of which his family claims he was never notified. A father in British Columbia was evicted from his home, cut off from his children, and ordered to pay more than twice his income in child and spousal support plus court costs for a divorce to which his never consented. He hanged himself from a tree. A mother in Massachusetts was recently told by social workers to divorce her husband or they would take away her children, and they did. In the same state a fathers' rights activist claims he was dragged from his car and beaten by what appeared to be plainclothes police and told to stop making trouble for the courts or he would never see his son again.

These cases are the tip of a huge iceberg. In the United States, Canada, Australia, and beyond both fathers and mothers are losing their children in large numbers and turned into outlaws. They are subjected to questioning about their private lives that attorney Jed Abraham has termed an "interrogation" and incarcerated without trial. They are jailed for failing to pay lawyers and psychotherapists they never hired for services they never sought. Their children are taught to hate them with the backing of government officials and used as informers against them.

Why is this happening?

Contrary to basic principles of free government, family courts operate largely behind closed doors and without record of their proceedings. The secrecy ostensibly protects family privacy, though more often it provides a cloak to invade family privacy with impunity. "The family court is the most powerful branch of the judiciary," writes a prominent American judge. "The power of family court judges is almost unlimited." American Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas once characterized them with the term "kangaroo court."

Family courts sit at the nexus of a powerful network of lawyers, psychotherapists, social workers, bureaucratic police, and others. Recalling Dickens's observation that "the one great principle of the law is to make business for itself," it may not be overly cynical to suggest that judges and their entourage have a vested interest in separating children from their parents.

Family courts routinely ignore basic civil liberties and international human rights conventions. "Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order," American municipal court judge Richard Russell told a judges' training seminar in 1994. "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around. . . . We don't have to worry about the rights."

Family law is now criminalizing activity as basic as free speech. In Australia it is a crime for litigants to speak publicly about family law. A Sydney group protesting peacefully in 1998 was told "if any people who had any involvement with family court were identified the media and that person would be prosecuted to the fullest extent" of the law. As in Britain, Australian family courts have closed Internet sites operated by parents' groups.

In some American jurisdictions it is likewise a crime to criticize judges. The former husband of singer Wynonna Judd was recently arrested for speaking to reporters about his divorce. A father protesting outside his Los Angeles home on Fathers' Day 1998 that he had not seen his son in more than two years was apprehended by police for a "psychiatric evaluation". Following his congressional testimony critical of family courts, a Georgia father was stripped of custody of his two children, ordered to pay lawyers he had not hired, and jailed. "We believe the court is attempting to punish [him] for exposing the court's misconduct to a congressional committee," said the president of a local fathers' group.

Family courts are now politicized by ideological agendas and attack citizens ' groups for exercising their political rights. The Australia Family Court publishes a book attacking fathers' groups as "a concerted lobby of disaffected individuals". In 1998 the court's Chief Justice publicly declared them a "sinister element". In a paper funded by the US Justice Department, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, an association of ostensibly impartial judges who sit on actual cases, attacks "dangerous" fathers' groups for their political opinions and "values" and their belief "that divorce is always harmful to children". The words "divorce" and "custody" sound deceptively innocuous. We should remind ourselves that they involve bringing the penal system into the home for use against family members. Once we thus marshal the state apparatus there is no reason to assume it will stop where we want it to. "When they've taken away the fathers," warns Irish Times columnist John Waters, "they'll take away the mothers."

Stephen Baskerville, a professor of political science at Howard University in Washington, is spokesman for Men, Fathers, and Children International, a coalition of fatherhood groups from 9 countries, and serves on the board of Gendercide Watch, a human rights organization that monitors gender-selective atrocities.

Copyright (c) 2001  Stephen Baskerville,

Department of Political Science,

Howard University Washington,

DC 20059

[Stephen spoke at our 28oct00 conference. A very fine, lengthy article about the rapidly growing Child Protection Industry is at - Ed]


Spreading Misandry

The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture

- Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young

A probing inquiry into the pervasiveness of negative male stereotypes in popular culture.

Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young argue that men have routinely been portrayed as evil, inadequate, or as honorary women in popular culture since the 1990s. These stereotypes are profoundly disturbing, the authors argue, for they both reflect and create hatred and thus further fracture an already fractured society. In Spreading Misandry they show that creating a workable society in the twenty-first century requires us to rethink feminist and other assumptions about men.

The first in an eventual three part series, Spreading Misandry offers an impressive array of evidence from everyday life, case studies from movies, television programs, novels, comic strips, and even greeting cards, to identify a phenomenon that is just now being recognized as a serious cultural problem. Discussing misandry, the sexist counterpart of misogyny, the authors make clear that this form of hatred must not be confused with reverse sexism or anger and should neither be trivialized nor excused. They break new ground by discussing misandry in moral terms rather than purely psychological or sociological ones and refer critically not only to feminism but to political ideologies on both the left and the right. They also illuminate the larger context of this problem, showing that it reflects the enduring conflict between the Enlightenment and romanticism, inherent flaws in postmodernism, and the dualistic (Aus versus Athem) mentality that has influenced Western thought since ancient times.

A groundbreaking study, Spreading Misandry raises serious questions about justice and identity in an increasingly polarized society. It is

Ill17 p19

important for anyone in interested in ethics, gender, or popular culture, or just concerned about the society we are creating.

Genuinely intelligent and insightful. Spreading Misandry is provocative in the very best sense and will help point the way toward social harmony and away from bickering and fingerpointing. - Donna Laframboise, columnist for The National Post and author of The Princess at the Window: A New Gender Morality

An important book. Nathanson and Young do a good job on introducing the average reader to the positions of various intellectuals as they relate to this moral issue and to moral issues in general. - Charles H. Long, emeritus, religious studies, University of California at Santa Barbara

Spreading Misandry turns the tables on the gender wars. It's not men ganging up on women. It is just the reverse--a long and gradual  cultural attack on men.  This book is a brilliant and perceptive overstatement, but one that is needed to discover the truth that will heal the rift between the sexes." Don Browning, University of Chicago and co-author of From Culture Wars to Common Ground

Paul Nathanson is a freelance editor and author of Over the Rainbow: The Wizard of Oz as a Secular Myth of America. Katherine K. Young is professor of the history of religions in the Faculty of Religious Studies at McGill University and has published extensively on women.

October 2001 6 x 9 390pp Cloth ISBN 0-7735-2272-7 $39.95 (US) $29.95 (UK) £21.50

Dad as nurturer

A psychologist says children do better with single fathers than single mothers

- Candis McLean, Report, Canada, 11june01

A war against fathers has been raging over the past several decades, with mothers and children among the losers, according to California-based psychologist Warren Farrell. During that time, the percentage of single dads doubled, the pendulum swung from the era of Father Knows Best to the era of Daddy Molests, from dad as family head to deadbeat dad. So contends Mr. Farrell in his new book, Father and Child Reunion: How to Bring the Dads We Need to the Children We Love. However, he believes, the pendulum is about to swing back. As an indication, he points to a Harris poll which last year asked people in their twenties if they would give up money for more time with the children: an unprecedented 70% of the men said yes, as compared to 63% of the women. "Just as the last third of the twentieth century was about creating equal opportunity for women as workers, so the first third of the twenty-first will be about creating equal opportunity for men as parents. Neither goal will be achieved until both goals are achieved," he states.

More controversially, Mr. Farrell ranks family structures, according to how they serve the child's best interest, as:

  1. the intact family;

  2. shared parent-time;

  3. primarily father time; and

  4. primarily mother time.

According to his research, both boys and girls living with single dads do better in all academic areas, particularly math and science, health-wise with fewer days absent from school and less likelihood of being hospitalized, and socially, through an increased likelihood of developing empathy. Empathy, he says, is created by the male style of discipline, which focuses the child less on getting its way and more on the reward to be obtained by paying attention to others' needs.

Most children also pay more attention to fathers than mothers - "which frustrates mothers no end" - he claims, because in their discipline, dads:

 *  restrict less often;

  *  give more input before restricting;

  *  are more likely to set up consequences, and

  *  are more likely to stick to them.

 The failure to establish effective boundaries also explains, Mr. Farrell believes, the fact that single-mother households account for 43% of all abused children, and single moms are 24 times as likely to kill children as single dads. "When boundaries are not set well, and the children nag the mom into a state of frustrated exhaustion and powerlessness, mom is more likely to 'lose it' and hit the child. Domestic violence is a momentary act of power designed to compensate for an experience of powerlessness. These moms are having an experience of powerlessness."

Beyond discipline, the overall reason children do better with single fathers than single mothers, the psychologist contends, is not because men are better at fathering than women are at mothering, but rather because of the type of men who seek and get primary custody: those with higher incomes than their ex-wives, better education and more motivation to overcome the psychological, social and legal barriers to men gaining sole custody. Ironically, the fourth reason children do better with single dads is because they are more likely to have their moms involved than children with single moms are to have dads involved. In other words, they come closer to having two parents.

The ultimate answer to the problem of divorce, the author concludes after writing four books on the battle of the sexes, is "the need to get pre-school children and their parents involved in learning ways to give and receive personal criticism in a way that allows them to communicate about everything. Nothing really positive comes unless we get that." The most powerful step in receiving criticism, he says, is to "imagine the criticizer on a movie screen. The temporary emotional dissociation allows you to listen, rather than distort what the criticizer says, find flaws in it, or side-step and counter-attack, all of which result in 100% dissociation, and require the criticizer to up the ante - raise their voice and distort in order to make their point, or back off and shut up."

The intact family is best for children because of the different contributions of moms and dads. "For example, mom is more likely to say, 'Don't climb the tree, you could hurt yourself,' and dad, 'Oh let her climb the tree, it's important for her to learn how to take risks.' In the intact family a compromise can allow the child to climb the tree with dad standing under it to cushion a fall. The child receives both protection and risk-taking. However, when the mom and dad don't value their differences, they create tension that destabilizes the family."

Write a letter to the Editor:



Rabid feminists call fathers' rights advocates such as Warren Farrell 'incest proponents'

- Candis McLean. The Report Newsmagazine, 20aug01

Seldom have recent stories in The Report evoked so many and such vitriolic letters as those prompted by an article in the June 11, 2001, issue titled "Dad as Nurturer." The article summarized findings in the book Father and Child Reunion: How to Bring the Dads We Need to the Children We Love by California author Warren Farrell. In it, Mr. Farrell ranks family structures, according to how they serve the child's best interest, as:

1) the intact family;

2) shared parent-time;

3) primarily father time; and

4) primarily mother time.

The tenor of the letters in response is summed up by the comment from M.L. Bruno of Wrightstown, New Jersey, who wrote: "WHAT A CROCK." Warren Farrell "advocates incest," wrote Cindy Ross of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice in Fairfax, California. "There are a number of other sexologists, pedophiles and incest proponents connected to Fathers' Rights,' 'Children's Rights' and 'shared parenting' organizations," she claims. "By renaming themselves 'psychologists' and 'child experts,' they try to give the illusion of legitimacy to their perverse agenda. The only 'fatherhood' they promote is controlling and abusive, and the only 'relationships' between fathers and children that they advocate are sexual in nature or otherwise inappropriate."

"It is so typical," sighs Mr. Farrell. The author of five books attempting to help the sexes understand one other, he has had three speaking engagements and two appearances on "the biggest radio shows in the U.S." cancelled after radical feminists such as Florida attorney Liz Kates alleged to them he was pro-incest. Ms. Kates also wrote one of the letters to this magazine, stating, "Let's start right off by correcting the most blatant error. Warren Farrell is not a psychologist. His PhD is in political science. Farrell did appear to get interested in 'sexology' for a

Ill17 p19

while ('millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves.'-Warren Farrell, quoted in December 1977 Penthouse article, 'Incest: The Last Taboo,' by Philip Nobile.)"

Mr. Farrell, who spoke in Calgary in June, responds: "A few years ago I informed Liz Kates that the word 'generally' had been mis-transcribed as 'genitally.'

Nevertheless, Kates and a woman named Trish Wilson continue to publicize the misquote. I am seeking legal action. They have been making similar accusations of many other men's-issues advocates; their most pointed attacks are on men working on fathers' issues ('they all just want to molest their children')." He points to Web sites created by these women devoted to discrediting him, labelling his academic- and government-sourced research "a barrel of steaming compost." They offer links to feminist articles supporting "The Deliberate Construction of Families Without Fathers" or debunking "myths" such as "A father's most important role is 'fathering' his children" when in reality, say the feminists, his most important role is "making life easier for his children's mother."

Mr. Farrell, who for 30 years has conducted workshops for psychologists, did do a study about incest in the 1970s "to better help people who were traumatized." His contribution to the controversy, he believes, is that as a then graduate student, he "tried to be neutral, to disengage from the horror, let the data speak for itself, then draw thoughtful, balanced conclusions. Now that I've raised two sets of stepchildren," he adds, "I would have a more gut-level negative reaction. The idea of touching is repulsive. If someone touched one of my daughters when she was 13, I'd be so furious."

Data ignored by antagonists includes his findings that once a parent starts being sexual with a child, he or she starts needing the child and loses the ability to set boundaries, a problem compounded by the child realizing he or she has blackmail power. In addition, Mr. Farrell found, " Girls are often molested before they know about sexuality. When they later learn this was abuse, they learn that the only person in their life they trusted was an abuser. They feel unloved, unworthy, they can't trust any man or, if it was a woman, any woman. They may also become sexually inappropriate because they were sexually activated too early, or completely close down and never become sexual."

No one paid any attention to the 1977 Penthouse misquote, he says, until the 1993 publication of his book The Myth of Male Power, critical of some aspects of feminism. In it he contended that men are paid more because they do more hazardous jobs, move more often and accept more responsibility, and included findings such as 40% of the women employed on one major naval ship became pregnant shortly before it departed for the Gulf War.

The biggest problem in the battle of the sexes, he concludes, is the 30,000 women's courses in the U.S. each year-by his estimate 3,000 in Canada-whose graduates, believing men oppress women in many ways, are pumped into every bureaucracy in which gender-related decisions are made. "In many respects, MP Hedy Fry and the Status of Women offers more government protection of women and condemnation of fathers' rights than what we have in the U.S. It would be as if North America had 33,000 courses on the value of being conservative and none on liberalism. It's become a one-party system of gender politics."

Subscribe to take full advantage of the newsmagazine.

Write a letter to the Editor.



NATIONAL POST August 23, 2001

TORONTO (CP) -- A man who spent three years in prison for sexual assault had his name cleared Thursday.

 The Ontario Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and called the case a miscarriage of justice.

 Jamie Nelson, 34, of Stratford, Ont., spent 37 months in prison from 1996 to 1999 after an Ottawa social worker falsely accused him of sexual assault.

 Nelson said he's happy because his "nightmare" is over but is also saddened because it happened at all.

 Nelson's lawyer, Todd Ducharme, said the complainant has since been convicted of making similar false allegations against other men.

Copyright (c) 2001, Canoe Limited Partnership. All rights reserved.


Catty Clatford or what?

DR DAVID HARRIES does make exceedingly good cakes. So much so that his mouth-watering Victoria  sponge, quiche, jams and gingerbread beat all the local housewives to win the village fete cookery contest. This year, he has been barred.

Such was the ill-will that followed Dr Harries's victory last year that he has been ruled ineligible to defend his title and the organisers of the Goodworth Clatford Flower Show and Fete have been left ruing the day when real men learned to bake quiche.


25,000 cases collapse through absent police

- David Bamber, Sunday Telegraph, 21oct01, p16

Thousands of magistrates' court cases are abanodoned every year because the police do not turn up to give evidence .... more than 25,000 trials a year .... scrapped ....[costs] more than £10 million ....

Police officers say it is the chaotic and archaic structure of the magistrates' court system that leads to confusion .... they are never sure whether or not to turn up. ....


M4 siege

M4 siege suspect described as pleasant and friendly from:      21oct01

The owner of the Seaview caravan park in Cornwall where the hostage drama began says the man arrested had been calm and friendly during his stay at the site. June Brownbridge says the suspect, who spoke with a northern accent, arrived at the site in Sennen nearly two weeks ago in his motor caravan. He paid the £325-a-fee in advance and in cash and booked for a two-week stay, she said. Although the 45-year-old was seen around the site, the owner says nobody saw his wife or the mother of the toddler. Mrs Brownbridge said: "He was a perfectly pleasant man and was always very friendly. We saw him walking around with his son. He told me he worked in the Bahamas renting out property and was looking for a base in Cornwall as he loved this part of this country.

"He said he would be moving down with his wife and son from the north of the country. He was perfectly calm and friendly whenever I saw him. He'd come in and get a newspapers every morning."

Mrs Brownbridge said he registered at the site as Mr P Brooks. She added: "I thought his wife was with the whole time and I don't know what happened on Friday night. We didn't even see any police unless they were in an unmarked car.

"I'm so glad this has come to a peaceful conclusion."

Wiltshire Police said they would not release the identity of the man being held in connection with the siege while he was being questioned and had not been charged.


Making Contact Work

The Family Courts Consortium in collaboration with The Lord Chancellor's Department and The Financial Times will hold An Interactive Consultation Day at the Financial Times Conference Centre, Southwark Bridge, London, on tue20nov01 from 10.30am until 4.00pm

Aim: To provide effective contact between children and non-resident parents.

The day will be chaired by the Honourable Mr. Justice Wall, Chairman of the Children Act sub-Committee and Family Liaison Judge for the Northern Circuit

The cost of the day; £45

For information, tel. 0207 581 4838, or write to The Chairman, Family Courts Consortium, 727 Nell Gwynn House, Sloane Ave., London SW3 3AX


[pp21-24 missing from this version. – Ed]

Association of Chief Police Officers,

C/o Chief Constable,

Dyfed Powis Constabulary,


Carmarthen SA31 2PF


Dear Mr Grange,

Police and the Witch Craze


George Williamson of AAFAA, in his 17may03 letter to you, urged the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to enquire into the role and effect of the Child Protection Movement  (CPM) This web page shows you that there is no time to lose if police forces want to avoid taking the rap for CPM activity when the balloon goes up. The journal I edited, see , is replete with scandalous cases which could damage our police. See for instance these three from the present www page which I happened to be looking at today;


Save us from social workers on crusade

- Donna Laframboise, National Post (Canada), 12july01

.... Here in Canada, judges have condemned social workers for taking sides when divorcing mothers have falsely accused fathers of child sexual abuse. ….


MISSOULA, MONTANA - First, they took her three young girls on an anonymous and unverifiable phone call that one looked kind of sick.  Then they moved heaven and earth, trying desperately to take the baby she bore a month later, though it was several states out of their jurisdiction.  Then they had her arrested and thrown in a Montana jail for "kidnapping" her own children. ….


…. IN the Nordic countries - each year, millions of crowns are squandered and thousands of innocent families are needlessly wrecked by dishonest social workers, incompetent child protection officers and secretive administrative (family) courts.


Also see


Cherie Booth has already been bitten once, in Bristol. She is heavily mired in the CPM, as is Butler-Sloss. Blair will not always be there to shield our police from the backlash against the excesses of the CPM movement.


Out police forces have been warned, and have a duty to protect our children from the CPM, and to protect themselves from the fallout when the current witch craze collapses. Ignorance will be no excuse.


I urge you to organise a good ACPO attendance when Claire Curtis-Thomas MP and Detective Inspector Andrew Parker speak on the problem at the third UCAFAA conference on 27sep03, Conway Hall, London, contact , , and that they make their presence known, thus showing ACPO concern.


Ivor Catt      01727 864257

121 Westfields,

St. Albans AL3 4JR      23may03