Family breakdown


Ivor Catt 23nov02


The Crisis Deepens


Generally, government think tanks and focus groups dealing with the family and similar were more or less all female, with a smattering of poodle-men from (say) the NSPCC.

By 1999, the crisis was on two levels. First, social collapse could be foreseen more clearly. Second, the absurdity of shutting the experts from 50% of the population out of decision making was becoming apparent.

Women in the Home Office and Lord Chancellor’s Department set out to camouflage the scandal by inviting expert fathers like me to inappropriate seminars and focus groups, and ignorant men to relevant committees. I was invited to one only, in 1999, which dealt with the (for me irrelevant) issue of sexual offences within the family.

Even before the one day conference began, I had flagged up the alleged problem of false allegations. Later, I stated on my website that n one present had the concept of a false allegation, see . I was never invited to a Home Office conference again. Robert Whiston, the Chairman of my organisation ManKind, was however invited to another (even more) irrelevant conference, on prostitution and pimping. With this, our input to Home Office policy planning ended.

It was clear in Leicester that the hidden agenda was to use any and every stratagem to give state support to randy adult women. In my smaller discussion group in Leicester, attempts were made to exploit the incest taboo and incest laws in this pursuit. Those present wanted to keep the mother’s latest lover for her, and use the law to keep him away from her daughter. The advanced notes for the conference had the concept of one member of the family being dependent on another. In the case involving dependency, sexual intercourse was either rape or incest.

I had tried to remain a ‘fly on the wall’ during the bizarre discussions, but at that point, I said; “That means that a 17 year old daughter can only lawfully have sexual intercourse with her mother’s lover if she goes out to work.” This remark was greeted with silence, and in time those present recovered, and forgot about it. It was excluded from the “reporting back” to the plenary session.

[Shockingly, the NSPCC poodleman present said it was generally preferred to charge rape rather than incest, because, he said, the stigma was then less. Everyone in my benighted group agreed. Of course, the reason was that it took blame away from the female involved.]

These appalling women in the Home Office have continued their manipulation since 1999, and their efforts to gain state support for randy adult women (who happen to be mothers) surfaced in The Daily Telegraph on 21nov02, see below.

As radfems, these women have failed to reverse the case which concerned them, where a stepfather is deterred from having consensual sexual intercourse with her daughter on pain of a charge of rape.

Under the new laws proposed by these dreadful women, if a daughter brings in her young man to cohabit, the mother may no longer steal him, on pain of imprisonment for rape.

This is the point at which the deeper horror of Denning’s ‘reforms’ will come into play.

Denning said that we should look beyond the statute, to the intentions of the legislators during the passage of legislation. He assumed, and so did I for a decade or two when I addressed Denning’s appalling ‘reform’, that this would be limited to intentions expressed by MPs and the like. However, in the middle of the present sex war, conducted by vicious radfems, the intention of the new legislation, to stop a daughter from stealing a mother’s lover, will not be used against a mother who steals a daughter’s lover. We all know the hidden agenda, that all aspect of society including our laws are now brought into play to maximise the freedom of adult women, and remove the basic civil rights of other groups, they being men and also children, both male and female. Thus, since we all know that the unspoken intent of the legislation will be to maximise the adult woman’s power at the expense of children, it will not be used against a mother who steals her daughter’s lover. This is the final reductio of absurdum of Denning’s appalling attack on the law.






How incest slipped from statute book

- Telegraph, 21nov02, p10


Changes aim to reflect altered make-up of households, reports Philip Johnston


Since the dawn of recorded history, sexual relations between blood kin have been considered taboo. In the Book of Leviticus, God tells , Moses: "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relation&. I am the Lord."


Incest has normally been defined in most societies in terms of blood relationships. But that is about to change.


A little-noticed proposal contained in the Government's White Paper on sexual offences this week will abolish the crime of incest and replace it with two new offences. These are familial sexual abuse of a child; and prohibited adult sexual relationships. The change reflects the fact that many children no longer, live , in families in which the male head of the household is their father.


Incest became a specific offence in England and Wales only in 1908. Before that it was dealt with by canon law, punishable by penance, except during the Protectorate in the 1650s, when it was punishable by death.


Under the Incest Act 1908, intercourse between a man and a woman he knows to be his grand-daughter, daughter, sister (including half-sister) or mother is illegal.


. Consent is irrelevant. A woman over the age of sexual consent may still not permit a man she knows to be her father, brother or grandfather or son to have sexual intercourse with her.


However, the most recent annual figures showed only 25 prosecutions of men and one of a woman.


Originally, the incest law is thought to have had a biological motive: it prevented defective genes being passed down the family line. But it is now


commonplace for children to live in a house. with a stepfather. or stepbrother with no common genes.


The White Paper says it is the protection of children within the family unit that should be covered by law rather than the incestuous nature of the relationship.


A good deal of prohibited, non-consensual, sexual behaviour within a family can be covered by other offences such as rape, unlawful sexual intercourse and assault.


But the White Paper suggests that the' potential for abuse of power within the family unit makes it important to introduce a specific offence that no longer relies upon lineal blood ties.


The new offence of familial sexual abuse of a child will apply for children up to the age of 18, not 16, which is normally the age of consent. This will capture all individuals of any age who have a familial relationship not only through blood ties but through fostering, adoption, marriage or cohabitation.


It would, therefore, be Unlawful for a man living with, though not married to, a woman to have a sexual relationship with her daughter aged 17, even though she is past the age of consent and not a blood relative. The maximum penalty for the offence would be 14 years in jail.


The White Paper also proposes the creation of a second offence - prohibited adult sexual relationships - to cover sexual activity between certain adult blood relatives yet to be defined -thereby retaining some elements of the incest laws.


However, the White Paper said it should remain illegal for adult blood relatives to engage in sexual relationships.