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. 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:
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 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 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. 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§ion=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) (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 |
