Dysfunction close to Blair

 

Cheri Booth keeps disreputable company

Cheri Blair keeps disreputable company

 

A large group of bizarre women circle round Tony Blair. They are not benign. They have no understanding of normal relationships between men and women.

Recently, a woman commentator said Harman was a gender supremacist.

Hock calls them “gender racists”.

Recently, I heard Harman speak at a DV conference ( www.ivorcatt.com/2029.htm ). She is set to cause major damage to society.

The attitude of these four women is appalling, and very destructive. Further, they have the power to destroy.

Ivor Catt    25aug02

 

 

 

Harriet Harman, How both sexes can bridge The Century Gap, pub. Vermilion 1993.

“[pvii] Many people have helped me write this book. Over the past twenty years Patricia Hewitt, Anna Coote and I have developed our ideas together. Their help in this book has been immeasurable… without them it would not even have been started.”

 

Coote, A., Harman, H. and Hewitt, P. The Family Way, IPPR Social Policy Paper No. 1, 1990. The three are co-authors. Coote is co-author with the dreadful Campbell (see below). Thus, govt ministers are tightly linked with the dreadful Campbell, and via her to her discredited partner and co-author Judith Jones, of Newcastle notoriety. Does Cheri realise she is keeping disreputable company? Does Tony B realise he has disreputable company in his cabinet? MG says these dreadful women helped him to power, and now is payback time. Pity our children have to pay the price.

Ivor Catt   28aug02

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

Now for the appalling writing by Coote.

Anna Coote and Beatrix Campbell, Sweet Freedom, The Struggle for women’s liberation, pub. Pan 1982.

p81

“ …. Two euphemisms for unpaid female labour, ‘the community’ and ‘the family’. The family is the basic unit of the community ….

“In this chapter, we look at the politicians’ campaign to promote ‘the family’ as an alternative to the welfare state, which has amounted to a concerted attack on the rights and status of women.”

[Compare p99, below, with Harman, The Century Gap, 1993, p58]

p99

“Since the late 1960s, many women have tried –individually and collectively – to break out of the conventional mould of family life. They have waged guerrilla war over the housework. They have ‘nagged’ and ‘scolded’ to get men to change their habits. …. They have lived communally with other men and women. They have set up networks of ‘women’s houses’ in towns and cities throughout the country. All this has been intrinsic to feminist politics since the birth of the women’s liberation movement.

At the same time, there are countless feminists who have married – to please themselves or their parents, or to ‘legitimise’ their children ….”

p100

“ …. The ‘heterosexual imperative’, ….”

p211

Sex

…. The relationship between power and sex lies at the heart of the struggle for women’s liberation. …. Challenge conventional notions about sexuality. One such notion is that sexuality belongs in the private sphere …. Finally, we explore the possibilities of breaking away from oppressive definitions of homosexuality and lesbianism.”

p212

Recipe for a heterosexual woman

Feminists have had to contend with some powerful myths. One is that sex is a purely natural phenomenon and therefore apolitical …. Another is that the natural expression of sexuality is what we know as heterosexuality. A third is that a woman’s sense of her own sexuality is natural, rather than something that has been constructed by social and economic factors.”

p213

“Conventional heterosexual practice – that bizarre mixture of myth and coercion – is defended more vigorously than any other precept on which our society is supposed to be founded.

A woman who becomes an engineer or a Cabinet minister …. is not seen as a threat to the social fabric. A woman who has sexual relations with another woman is seen as such …. Disapproval and abuse are heaped on a female who has sex with many different people. …. The law takes more trouble to protect children from any contact with unconventional sexuality than to shield them from violence.”

p216

[Coote/Campbell report on and quote Shere Hite as if Hite is a respectable researcher, not a figure of fun as our ManKind 2001 conference speaker Lynette Burrows regards her.]

p218

“ …. A key feature of the [women’s liberation] movement [is] …. ‘the personal is political.’”

p219

“[in the late 1960s] …. Women began to recognise conventional heterosexual practice as the glue which holds up the patriarchal order – by symbolising and reinforcing male power and female dependency ….

“Koedt suggests that ‘the establishment of clitoral orgasm as a fact would threaten the heterosexual institution,’ and that men are too fearful of losing their hold over women …. . Male power relies heavily on the continual sexual dependency of women …. ‘What we must do,’ Koedt insists, ‘is re-define our sexuality’.”

p225

“In 1979, Leeds Revolutionary Feminists published Political Lesbianism: The Case Against Heterosexuality. [reprinted in Love Your Enemy?, pub. Only Women Press, 1981.]

“This asserts that penetration is ‘an act of great symbolic significance, by which the oppressor enters the body of the oppressed.’. It …. insists that [heterosexual women] are ‘collaborators with the enemy’.

‘Every woman who lives with or fucks a man helps to maintain the oppression of her sisters and hinders our struggle.’ All feminists, the Leeds paper claims, ‘can and should be political lesbians.’

‘Our definition of a political lesbian is a woman – identified woman who does not fuck men. It does not mean compulsory sexual activity with women.’”

p227

 “The [feminist] critics rejected the doctrinaire approach of the Leeds group as being inimical to women’s politics.” See Laski and Leeds

The anti-marriage fanatics won't see why children fail

- Melanie Phillips,

Sunday Times, 19nov00, p19

Round three, and not yet out. Behind the scenes in Whitehall, a battle has been raging over marriage. In the nuptial corner are Jack Straw, Paul Boateng and David Blunkett. Opposing them is the feminist hard core made up of Baroness jay, Harriet Harman and sundry women junior ministers. ….

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

John Pilger, Hidden Agendas, pub. Vintage 1998, p93; “Following the 1997 election Hewitt praised lone parents of Leicester as ‘the heroes and heroines of my constituency [who] will be the heroes and heroines of the new Britain’…. [p621] Hewitt’s post-election contortions cited by Francis Wheen ….”

x

X

Blair abandons pretence on family values for 'inclusive' approach

- Rachel Sylvester,

Telegraph, 16nov00, p10

.... Tony Blair has been forced to step in to break up a fight between ministers who want the Govt to promote marriage and those who think cohabiting couples and single parents have equal validity.

The Prime Minister used his casting vote to oppose support for the institution. Ministers tell me that all references to marriage as the "best model" for family life have been removed from a forthcoming Govt paper on the subject after the intervention of No. 10.

The ministerial committee has been locked in conflict for months as it tried to agree the wording of the crucial pre-election statement in this Middle England touchstone issue.

The men - Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, who chairs the groups, and Paul Boateng, his junior minister - have said that the paper should single out marriage as the ideal context for raising children. They want the Govt to take a strong stand.

The women - Baroness Jay, the leader of the Lords, Margaret Hodge, the education minister, Baroness Hollis, the social security minister, and Patricia Hewitt, at the Dept. of Trade and Industry - have advocated a more "inclusive" approach. They think that children from broken homes or single parent families will feel inferior if the Govt promotes a particular structure. They also said Cabinet ministers, many of whom are either divorced or homosexual, [see "Statistics as the Sword of Truth", Male View jan99 p19, or  http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/yc2death.htm ] could leave themselves open to a "back to basics" style campaign if they preached a lifestyle that they had not followed themselves. .... The positions have been deeply entrenched and the discussions passionate. Neither side has been willing to compromise. At one point an early draft .... including the commitment to marriage, was leaked to the Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee who duly duffed it up. It was a clear attempt by the sisterhood to get the pro-marriage rhetoric watered down.

The final version will be a compromise, similar to the fudge of the 1998 green paper Supporting Families .... Now it seems that the Prime Minister has realised that he can no longer get away with trying to imply that ministers think marriage is the "best" way.

[On 2dec00, in The Telegraph, p10, Rachel Sylvester added divorced Tessa Jowell, minister for employment and women (friend of Margaret Jay. ".... we're very close....") to the throng of women close to Blair who want the govt to assert no preference for marriage. To add to the muddle, Jowell "thinks some groups of men - those over 50 and working class boys - are now more disadvantaged than their female peers." How much time, and how many suicides, will it take before these dreadful women sort themselves out? - Ed]

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

 

Ill Eagle 16, aug01, p6

 

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 to 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 statistic that women initiate more violence in the home 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 www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/18154.htm]

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

Harriet Harman, The Century Gap, pub. Vermilion 1993.

p57

“…. Just 13 per cent of women of child-bearing age think that a woman needs a child to be fulfilled – only 25 per cent of mothers actually think this.”

p58

“Within the family [men] …. must exercise within their homes the rules of common courtesy and respect which they practise at work.”

p75

“As Beatrix Campbell points out in her eloquent book Wigan Pier Revisited …. ….”

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

The frightening realisation is that a vicious self-proclaimed lesbian Beatrix Campbell is very close indeed to this country’s centres of power.

This is an international problem. In Canada, Judge Dub has played a similar role to Sloss in England. Then there are Dworkin and MacKinnon in the U.S.A. These dreadful, dysfunctional women are in communication with each other worldwide, for instance Sloss with Dub. It is urgent that normal women take note, and then take action.

Ivor Catt      25aug02

 

nov01 DV conference, with Cheri Blair and Sloss present.

www.ivorcatt.com/2202.htm

 

Sloss stokes the witch-craze    www.ivorcatt.com/2210.htm

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

“…. Judith Jones, the social worker at the centre of a ‘satanic scare’ that caused another costly enquiry in Nottingham which had police searching (unsuccessfully) for babies’ bones. Her partner is Beatrix Campbell, radical feminist and strong believer in widespread child abuse. …. Both are involved in university teaching on gender and womens studies. Some of Campbell’s books are university texts on child abuse.” – George Williamson, You could be next to be falsely accused of sexual abuse, Newsletter No 7 of AAFAA, Action Against False Allegations of Abuse, Autumn 2002, p1. www.aafaa.org.uk

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

Judith Jones makes false allegations of sexual abuse

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_newca.htm ; The [Newcastle] Council was in a difficult position, because they had already concluded that the pair were guilty, and the costs of compensating over 100 children would be immense. They decided to appoint an internal independent inquiry - a review team. Four experts working two days a week for two years ran up a bill of £400,000 (about $670,000 USF) while preparing a report on the fiasco. 1

The media had repeatedly named the two workers as abusers since their acquittal by the court. They were presumed guilty by many of the citizens of Newcastle; there lives and professional careers were damaged beyond repair.

"Abuse in the Early Years." report:

In 1998-NOV, more than four years after the women's acquittal, the review team of:

bullet

Dr. Richard Barker, a social worker at the University of Northumbria;

bullet

Judith Jones, (formerly Judith Dawson), an feminist, prominent Satanic Ritual Abuse lecturer, and social worker;

bullet

Jacqui Saradjian, a clinical psychologist; and

bullet

Roy Wardell, a former director of social services for Barnsley Motropolitan borough Council

issued their report: "Abuse in the Early Years." It "accused the pair of being members of a paedophile ring." The report's authors "claimed [that the two nurses] used their positions to groom young children for rape and abuse by themselves and other members of the ring." 2

Christopher Lillie, 37, and Dawn Reed, 31, sued both the council and the review team for libel. The team and council defended their report, claiming that it was covered by qualified privilege. The nurses also sued the publishers of the Newcastle Chronicle newspaper for libel. That action was settled out of court.

The libel trial started on 2002-JAN-14 and lasted for 73 days. It was heard by Mr. Justice Eady in a trial without jury. It generated more than ten thousand pages of transcript. The plaintiffs' lawyer, Adrienne Page QC, said the report "accused Chris and Dawn of the most serious and repugnant crimes it is possible to imagine. All the more abhorrent for relating to very young children of two or three years old whose care was entrusted to them." Miss Page told the judge that the report was released into the public domain without warning in "what we suggest was an act of extraordinary irresponsibility and callous indifference...Publication of this report was utterly devastating and ruinous for Chris and Dawn and their respective families." 2

Mr. Justice Eady ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded Lillie and Reed £200,000 pounds each. This is the maximum allowed by law. He upheld their claim against the four report authors, saying that they had "forfeited" the protection of qualified privilege because they were "malicious in the promulgation of their report..."That is because they included in their report a number of fundamental claims which they must have known to be untrue and which cannot be explained on the basis of incompetence or mere carelessness." The judge rejected the plaintiffs' claim against Newcastle City Council because they had a defense of qualified privilege. 4 Mr Justice Eady announce that they "merited an award at the highest permitted level" against the four authors of a report which contained "untrue" allegations of the "utmost gravity".

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4472670,00.html   …. in the Daily Express, Beatrix Campbell told her readers that the "stringent" [Newcastle] inquiry had found "persuasive evidence of sadistic and sexual abuse of up to 350 children".

In May 1999, Shieldfield was one of the main topics at a major ChildLine conference, chaired by Cherie Blair and featuring as speakers Hillary Clinton, the then home secretary Jack Straw, and David Calvert-Smith, the director of public prosecutions.

Just for once, everyone who wielded power and influence - the government, parliament, the media, leading charities - were in complete accord about what had happened and what needed to be done.

The overwhelming presumption was that the criminal justice system had betrayed the young "victims", because it was not properly equipped to assess the evidence of very young children. This soon had real political consequences. In 1999 two acts of parliament, the Protection of Children Act, and the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, were shaped by the Shieldfield story. Ironically, many of the key proposals of the latter act only came into force last Wednesday.

No one, it seemed, had paused to consider the possibility that the court verdict had been right all along and that Reed and Lillie were indeed innocent. ….”

“….Under pressure from distressed and angry parents who had been led by the council itself to believe their children had been abused, Newcastle city council commissioned a report from a review team consisting of Dr Richard Barker, a lecturer in social work at the University of Northumbria, independent social worker Judith Jones, psychologist Jacqui Saradjian and retired director of social services, Roy Wardell. They would receive £360,000 between them for their work. ….”

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

http://society.guardian.co.uk/domesticviolence/story/0,8150,392603,00.html

Men are the problem

Special report: policing crime

Beatrix Campbell
Wednesday October 25, 2000
The Guardian


An ordinary Thursday, a month ago. Every second between midnight and midnight a woman called the police for protection from her partner. Those women were being bashed, stabbed, cut, kicked, slapped or "just" terrorised and intimidated. Very few of their assailants were arrested. ….

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

http://www.aviva.org/features.htm

'Stolen Voices: An Exposure of the Campaign to Discredit Childhood Testimony, by Beatrix Campbell & Judith Jones. Published by The Women's Press. A book about a decade of discovery about the extent of child abuse - immediately followed by its denial. The outcome is that it has become almost impossible for children to get justice in the British Courts.
Contact: The Women's Press  ; http://www.the-womens-press.com/ 

http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2/stolenvoices.html 

http://web.onetel.net.uk/~richardwebster/

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

http://www.angryharry.com/toogoodtomiss1.htm

Stolen Voices, apparently 'an exposure of the campaign to discredit childhood testimony' was written by journalist Beatrix Campbell and childcare consultant Judith Jones. Both women have been prominent over the last decade in their support of recovered memory and ritual abuse claims. Judith Jones was a social worker at the centre of the Nottingham Satanic abuse fiasco in 1989, while Campbell's support dates back to coverage of the Cleveland scandal in 1987.

Stolen Voices received poor reviews prior to its withdrawal in October last year, with Professor Jean Lafontaine stating: "The authors use personal attack to advance their views. The main target is the British False Memory Society, a support group for parents accused of sexual abuse by their mainly adult children, usually after some form of therapy. It is represented as an organisation that protects paedophiles by discrediting young children's allegations. I am another target, as are journalists, social workers and academics who are said to form the backlash. The use of innuendo is distasteful and, where I can judge them, the 'facts', simply, are not true. There is no new information and there are no new ideas on what can be done to protect children. Stolen Voices is a political document, long on rhetoric and short on fact; it fails to convince because it is misleading, thin and curiously dated.

The publishers circulated a letter of apology to those in receipt of pre-publication copies, agreeing to remove the defamatory material and paying the costs.

It is understood that the publishers have received numerous complaints about factual inaccuracies and defamatory references and Women's Press stated that they have no plans at present to republish the book.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

G K Chesterton, Fancies versus Fads. [early 20th century]

p124  ch. The Sentimentalism of Divorce

p128 “Free love is the direct enemy of freedom.”

p127

“…. These sociologists are not at all interested in promoting the sort of social life that marriage does promote. The sort of society of which marriage has always been the strongest pillar is sometimes called the distributive society; the society in which most of the citizens have a tolerable share of property, especially property in land …. the farm goes with the family and the family with the farm. Unless the whole domestic group hold together …. unless the family …. quarrels are kept out of the courts of officialism, the tradition of family ownership cannot be handed on unimpaired. On the other hand, the Servile State, …. the opposite of the distributive state, has always been rather embarrassed by the institution of marriage ….

“Free love is the direct enemy of freedom. …. In servile societies a vast amount of sexual laxity can go on in practice, and even in theory …..”

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

"No-Parent Families: Unequal treatment of fathers and mothers under Family Law," by William Hartley.  This article is on the table of contents for the summer 2002 issue of The Salisbury Review, "the quarterly magazine of conservative thought."  It is not online.  Anyone subscribe?  The website tells where you can buy a copy in London:  http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~salisbury-review/.  The e-mail address is:  salisbury-review@easynet.co.uk.

 

Also, I don't think this week's cover article in The Spectator by Griffin Stone has received the attention it deserves.  This is the cover of a major and venerable English-language opinion magazine, written by one of us.  This is their second cover on fathers in two years.  In June 2000 they ran a cover piece by Melanie Phillips, one of the best writers on fathers' issues.  We should flood the editors with mail:  letters@spectator.co.uk.  (This address works better than going to http://www.spectator.co.uk/articleComment.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2002-08-24&id=2174.)  Here is the letter I sent:

 

Dear Sir,

Griffin Stone’s excellent piece on child stealing from fathers implies it is a British problem. In fact, it is rampant throughout the English-speaking world and beyond. Countries with such traditional family morality as Japan and India are experiencing epidemics of maternal child snatching, which is invariably rewarded by courts.

How American lawyers could be shocked at the actions of British courts is perplexing. In virtually every American jurisdiction, fathers are losing not only their children but their homes, their life savings, future earnings, and freedom through divorces for which they gave neither consent nor grounds. American fathers are rounded up in pre-dawn raids and jailed indefinitely without trial or counsel. The US Attorney General recently announced mass arrests of fathers in which the avowed purpose was not to prosecute any particular lawbreaker but to spread fear. In Canada, special domestic violence courts remove fathers from their homes, confiscate their property, and jail them with no semblance of due process. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the US now have skyrocketing suicide rates among divorced fathers, as does Britain.

Stone also tends to trivialize his plight by attributing it to judicial "inertia and defeatism". In fact, it reveals perhaps the most dangerous trend in politics today: the use of children as political weapons. Family courts, operating in unaccountable secrecy, reward child stealing because it extends the power and reach of the state and the earnings of its operatives. It allows the state to achieve one of its most coveted and dangerous ambitions: to control the private lives of its citizens. Once the father is eliminated, state officials administer the family and the personal life of every member. Family courts recognize no private sphere of life.

Involuntary divorce is not a phenomenon; it is a regime – a marvelously self-perpetuating political machine that allows for the infinite expansion of government power. By removing fathers, the state creates a host of problems for itself to solve – the problems now brutally familiar as the products of father absence: child poverty, child abuse, juvenile crime, drug abuse, and much more.

There is nothing baffling about Stone’s ordeal. It represents a direct assault, ideologically driven and bureaucratically enforced, on the family and the social foundation of civilization itself.

Yours,

Stephen Baskerville, PhD (LSE)
Department of Political Science
Howard University
Washington, DC 20059
+202-806-7267
+703-560-5138

(PS: Perhaps you would like a full article elaborating on and documenting these points? My work has been published in many American and international publications, including the Washington Post, Washington Times, Liberty magazine, Women's Quarterly, Catholic World Report, Crisis magazine, Insight magazine, World Net Daily, Family Policy, the American Spectator, American Enterprise magazine, Human Events, and the Sunday Independent.)

Baskerville spoke at the ManKind 2000 Conference.

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/conf/generalinfo.htm

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/conf/speakers.htm

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/conf/more.htm#bas

 

 

Continued