15 June 2007
Dear Mr Burns
Thank you for your application for Kiwibank Life Insurance .
We’ve received the information required to complete our assessment of your application. Due to your heart condition we’re unable to provide you with cover for Kiwibank Life Insurance at this time.
Yours sincerely
Kiwibank
New Business & Underwriting.
I hate living in Kiwiland and when I get to shortly accompany my mum and dad I will be saddened that my children are lumbered with my funeral expenses.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Request for Mercy to Supreme Court .
Dam Sian Elias
Head of Supreme Court / Chief Justice
High Court Registry
Molesworth Street
Wellington.
1st June 2007
Dear Honourable Madam,
I write in a last ditch effort to try and clear my badly damaged credibility and dignity as a heartbroken father who has suffered from a considerable travesty of justice.
I have enclosed a recent Court of Appeal document that is frustrating for me, as I have already exhausted my appeal rights in the High Court Registry. On that occasion the judge said that although he had every sympathy for my predicament the essential thrust of my appeal hinges on the contention that the original 2001 protection orders were invalidly made. He directed me back to the Family Court. I did that, and after a hearing it was determined that the six named people remain court protected.
I cannot move forward with my life, as I feel constantly ill because my life has been unjustifiably invaded by unwarranted circumstances.
I request your assistance in helping me obtain a fair hearing so I can address a major miscarriage of justice, which was fatal recently for my heartbroken mother.
I am the heartbroken father to four New Zealand born children, two boys, and two alienated young girls.
I am on the WINZ invalids benefit with heart and depression problems and I appeal for the Court to show me mercy.
Yours faithfully
Peter Joseph Burns
27 Elizabeth Street
Rolleston
Canterbury.
Head of Supreme Court / Chief Justice
High Court Registry
Molesworth Street
Wellington.
1st June 2007
Dear Honourable Madam,
I write in a last ditch effort to try and clear my badly damaged credibility and dignity as a heartbroken father who has suffered from a considerable travesty of justice.
I have enclosed a recent Court of Appeal document that is frustrating for me, as I have already exhausted my appeal rights in the High Court Registry. On that occasion the judge said that although he had every sympathy for my predicament the essential thrust of my appeal hinges on the contention that the original 2001 protection orders were invalidly made. He directed me back to the Family Court. I did that, and after a hearing it was determined that the six named people remain court protected.
I cannot move forward with my life, as I feel constantly ill because my life has been unjustifiably invaded by unwarranted circumstances.
I request your assistance in helping me obtain a fair hearing so I can address a major miscarriage of justice, which was fatal recently for my heartbroken mother.
I am the heartbroken father to four New Zealand born children, two boys, and two alienated young girls.
I am on the WINZ invalids benefit with heart and depression problems and I appeal for the Court to show me mercy.
Yours faithfully
Peter Joseph Burns
27 Elizabeth Street
Rolleston
Canterbury.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
I can understand Mr Alec Baldwin's frustration
I can understand Mr Baldwin’s frustration, as I have stormed from the courtroom on several occasions heartbroken and cursing the sick system since my nightmare started for my two alienated daughters in July 2001. In solidarity – fathers’ rights – kids need dads too.
LATEST: Actor ALEC BALDWIN and his ex-wife KIM BASINGER are no closer to resolving their bitter custody battle, after the Departed star branded yesterday's court appear
The former couple have been locked in a legal fight to determine custody of their 11-year-old daughter Ireland since their divorce in 2002, but five years later, there is still no resolution in sight.
The proceedings have also been hampered by the leaking of an angry voicemail message Baldwin left for his daughter on his ex's answering machine earlier this year (07), in which the actor verbally chastises Ireland and calls his Basinger "a thoughtless pain in the ass".
He has since apologised for the "improper" message. Appearing at the closed hearing at Los Angeles Superior court on Friday (15Jun07), Baldwin and Basinger sat far apart from one another, leaving their lawyers to battle it out.
Baldwin was seen leaving the courtroom on two occasions during the four-hour hearing, and later emerged saying, "This is a waste of my f**king time." Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Maren Nelson had previously expressed her determination to discover who released the answer phone rant to the media, but no further light was shed on the matter yesterday. Baldwin and Basinger are due back in court for another hearing on 25 June (07).
LATEST: Actor ALEC BALDWIN and his ex-wife KIM BASINGER are no closer to resolving their bitter custody battle, after the Departed star branded yesterday's court appear
The former couple have been locked in a legal fight to determine custody of their 11-year-old daughter Ireland since their divorce in 2002, but five years later, there is still no resolution in sight.
The proceedings have also been hampered by the leaking of an angry voicemail message Baldwin left for his daughter on his ex's answering machine earlier this year (07), in which the actor verbally chastises Ireland and calls his Basinger "a thoughtless pain in the ass".
He has since apologised for the "improper" message. Appearing at the closed hearing at Los Angeles Superior court on Friday (15Jun07), Baldwin and Basinger sat far apart from one another, leaving their lawyers to battle it out.
Baldwin was seen leaving the courtroom on two occasions during the four-hour hearing, and later emerged saying, "This is a waste of my f**king time." Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Maren Nelson had previously expressed her determination to discover who released the answer phone rant to the media, but no further light was shed on the matter yesterday. Baldwin and Basinger are due back in court for another hearing on 25 June (07).
Friday, June 15, 2007
Muriel Newman
The Right to Justice
The rule of law and the right to justice are fundamental to a democratic society. The thought that someone could be imprisoned for a crime they didn’t commit is the stuff of nightmares.
New Zealand’s most famous such case was that of Arthur Allen Thomas. Convicted in 1971 for the deaths of Pukekawa couple Harvey and Jeanette Crewe, he was reconvicted after an appeal in 1973 and again in 1975. An appeal to the Privy Council was rejected in 1978, but largely as a result of the compelling evidence provided in books written by Pat Booth, a journalist with the Auckland Star, and British author David Yallop, Thomas was granted a free pardon in 1979.
In 1980 a Royal Commission of Inquiry found: “Mr Thomas should never have been convicted of the crimes, since there was a real doubt as to his guilt. He should accordingly have been found not guilty by the juries. Our own findings go further. They make it clear that he should never even have been charged by the Police. He was charged and convicted because the Police manufactured evidence against him, and withheld evidence of value to his defence.
They made the point: “At our hearings there have been often repeated statements about whether Mr Thomas can be proved innocent. Such a proposition concerns us. It seems to imply that there falls on to him some onus positively to prove himself innocent. Such a proposition is wrong and contrary to the golden thread which runs right through the system of British criminal justice, namely that the Prosecution has the duty to prove the accused guilty and until so proved he had to be regarded as innocent”. (To read the Report click here>>>)
In its report, the Royal Commission makes mention of New Zealand’s many 'crusaders' who attempt to right a wrong or fight for a principle at great personal sacrifice in time and money. Certainly, Mr Thomas would not have been pardoned if it had not been for the valiant efforts of his champions. David Dougherty, jailed for rape in 1992 would not have been retried and acquitted if Donna Chisholm of the Sunday Star-Times had not argued his case. Nor would David Bain have had his conviction quashed by the Privy Council if it had not been for Joe Karam and his books.
Lynley Hood, through her book “A City Possessed”, has been a champion for Peter Ellis, convicted in the Christchurch Civic Creche case, and now another champion, journalist Keith Hunter, is arguing the innocence of Scott Watson - convicted of murdering Ben Smart and Olivia Hope on New Year’s eve in 1997 - in his book “Trial by Trickery”.
Last year, retired High Court Judge Sir Thomas Thorpe released a report “Miscarriages of Justice” in which he examined miscarriages of justice in England, Scotland, the US, Canada and Australia and concluded that up to 5 percent of all convictions could be miscarriages of justice. He also analysed 53 applications to the Ministry of Justice that claimed a miscarriage of justice and concluded that some 20 people may at present be wrongly imprisoned in New Zealand.
The “Innocence Project” has recently been established at Victoria University to help fight for freedom for those who have been wrongly convicted. The movement began in New York in 1992 and has now spread to Canada, Wales, England and Australia, where teams of legal experts, psychologists, scientists and journalists work together to identify potentially wrongful convictions and campaign for justice.
And there is no shortage of wrongful convictions. A report from the US Department for Justice, “Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science” showed that in the seven years from 1989, new forensic DNA testing excluded about 20 per cent of sexual assault case suspects. The five main reasons for wrongful conviction: mistaken eyewitness identification, witnesses being coerced to make confessions, misconduct by law enforcement agencies, unreliable forensic laboratory work, and ineffective representation by defence counsel. (To read the report, click here>>>)
Another report “A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995” undertaken by researchers at Columbia University that looks at mistakes in capital punishment cases - where one would expect the highest standards of care to be taken - found that “during the 23-year study period, the overall rate of prejudicial error was 68%. In other words, courts found serious, reversible error in nearly 7 of every 10 of the thousands of capital sentences that were fully reviewed during the period. Capital trials produce so many mistakes that it takes three judicial inspections to catch them - leaving grave doubt whether we do catch them all. After state courts threw out 47% of death sentences due to serious flaws, a later federal review found "serious error" - error undermining the reliability of the outcome - in 40% of the remaining sentences”. (To read the report click here>>>)
The report goes on to identify the following two main reasons for these errors: “egregiously incompetent defense lawyers who didn't even look for - and demonstrably missed - important evidence that the defendant was innocent or did not deserve to die; and police or prosecutors who did discover that kind of evidence but suppressed it, again keeping it from the jury”.
Bill Hodge, Associate Professor of Law at Auckland University, in the Forward to “Trial by Trickery” describes Keith Hunter’s work as a “relentless, detailed dissection of the Scott Watson investigation and prosecution, and a legitimate commentary on the adversary system as providing for a contest, not a search for truth”.
He goes on to describe the ‘mystery yacht’ in the case as “a forty-foot ketch, being an old-fashioned wooden vessel, with two masts, a blue feature band, a row of portholes, heaps of elaborate rope work on the decks, a high rear deck, akin to a Chinese ‘junk’, and a high step up to board”, whereas “Watson’s Blade, was a 26-foot steel sloop about half the size of the other vessel, with only a single mast and none of the features of the larger vessel, and a step down to board”.
The ‘mystery man’, who boarded the ketch with Ben and Olivia, was “repeatedly identified by witnesses unknown to each other, as a wiry man, whose face had had no recent exposure to a razor, with lank, unkempt, wavy, shoulder-length hair, wearing a green shirt” whereas “Watson, was repeatedly identified as a solid man, with close-cropped hair, clean-shaven and wearing a blue denim shirt”.
In a review of the book in the Law Society’s “Law Talk” Victoria University law lecturer and journalist Steven Price makes the point that Guy Wallace, the water taxi driver who was the main witness against Watson, now insists he was hoodwinked into making the identification. Price states that the prosecution theory that Watson could steam out into Cook Strait and dump the bodies, was physically impossible given the boat speed and timeframe, and that this “two-trip” theory - which was sprung on the jury at the last moment - was disproved by the occupants of the boat Blade was tethered to.
He concludes: “Hunter asserts that those involved in securing Watson’s conviction were party to a horrendous miscarriage of justice. He says the police were deceptive and tunnel-visioned, the media helped spread damaging misinformation, and the prosecutors misled the jury.
“They’re serious allegations. But Hunter explains his grounds for them. His case is persuasive. The onus now, I think, is on the police and prosecution to answer it. What has Hunter got wrong? What other evidence has he missed out that should convince us that Watson is guilty? Is there a good response to his allegations of police and prosecution misconduct?
“I phoned the police and asked those questions. I was told that Rob Pope, who was in charge of the Watson investigation and is now Deputy Police Commissioner, hadn’t read the book, and didn’t want to relitigate the case, which after all had been through an appeals process.
“Not good enough, I say.
“Hunter has raised serious questions here, and they go to the heart of public confidence in the administration of justice. The fact that an innocent man may be in jail is just the beginning of what should trouble us about this case”. (To read the review, click here>>>)
Keith Hunter put together a documentary on the case, “Murder on the Blade” which was screened in 2003. So convinced is he that Scott Watson is innocent, that he wrote his book to set out the issues. I invited him to be the NZCPR Guest Commentator this week in the hope that it might help to bring justice to bear. Keith’s article can be viewed by clicking the sidebar link>>>.
Announcement
The NZ Centre for Political Research is founded on the belief that a democracy flourishes when the public are kept well informed and are encouraged to have their say. Accordingly I would like to advise you that two new services to progress those goals have been added to the NZCPR.com website.
The Consultation page provides links directly to Government agencies where details of reviews and proposed regulations that are open to public submissions can be found. I would urge you to keep an eye on this page and send in your submissions where appropriate - click here to view>>>.
The Media page provides quick links to radio, newspapers and television websites. If you click the radio links you can listen to the stations while you work. You might like to set this page up as your Homepage or add it to your “Favourites” - click here to view>>>.
How much is an independent voice on politics worth to you? Is it worth as much as a cup of coffee? The NZCPR is funded totally from the voluntary donations of readers of this newsletter. Your support is greatly appreciated - please click here>>>
Poll
The poll this week asks whether you believe that the New Zealand Supreme Court offers the same level of impartiality that was offered by the Privy Council.
To vote click here>>>
[Comments received during the week on the column and the poll will be posted here>>>]
Last week's poll asked: Do you agree or disagree with the critics of the NCEA that educational standards in New Zealand are falling.
The result: 96% voted Agree, 4% voted Disagree. You can read the hundreds of comments that were submitted by clicking here>>>.
The rule of law and the right to justice are fundamental to a democratic society. The thought that someone could be imprisoned for a crime they didn’t commit is the stuff of nightmares.
New Zealand’s most famous such case was that of Arthur Allen Thomas. Convicted in 1971 for the deaths of Pukekawa couple Harvey and Jeanette Crewe, he was reconvicted after an appeal in 1973 and again in 1975. An appeal to the Privy Council was rejected in 1978, but largely as a result of the compelling evidence provided in books written by Pat Booth, a journalist with the Auckland Star, and British author David Yallop, Thomas was granted a free pardon in 1979.
In 1980 a Royal Commission of Inquiry found: “Mr Thomas should never have been convicted of the crimes, since there was a real doubt as to his guilt. He should accordingly have been found not guilty by the juries. Our own findings go further. They make it clear that he should never even have been charged by the Police. He was charged and convicted because the Police manufactured evidence against him, and withheld evidence of value to his defence.
They made the point: “At our hearings there have been often repeated statements about whether Mr Thomas can be proved innocent. Such a proposition concerns us. It seems to imply that there falls on to him some onus positively to prove himself innocent. Such a proposition is wrong and contrary to the golden thread which runs right through the system of British criminal justice, namely that the Prosecution has the duty to prove the accused guilty and until so proved he had to be regarded as innocent”. (To read the Report click here>>>)
In its report, the Royal Commission makes mention of New Zealand’s many 'crusaders' who attempt to right a wrong or fight for a principle at great personal sacrifice in time and money. Certainly, Mr Thomas would not have been pardoned if it had not been for the valiant efforts of his champions. David Dougherty, jailed for rape in 1992 would not have been retried and acquitted if Donna Chisholm of the Sunday Star-Times had not argued his case. Nor would David Bain have had his conviction quashed by the Privy Council if it had not been for Joe Karam and his books.
Lynley Hood, through her book “A City Possessed”, has been a champion for Peter Ellis, convicted in the Christchurch Civic Creche case, and now another champion, journalist Keith Hunter, is arguing the innocence of Scott Watson - convicted of murdering Ben Smart and Olivia Hope on New Year’s eve in 1997 - in his book “Trial by Trickery”.
Last year, retired High Court Judge Sir Thomas Thorpe released a report “Miscarriages of Justice” in which he examined miscarriages of justice in England, Scotland, the US, Canada and Australia and concluded that up to 5 percent of all convictions could be miscarriages of justice. He also analysed 53 applications to the Ministry of Justice that claimed a miscarriage of justice and concluded that some 20 people may at present be wrongly imprisoned in New Zealand.
The “Innocence Project” has recently been established at Victoria University to help fight for freedom for those who have been wrongly convicted. The movement began in New York in 1992 and has now spread to Canada, Wales, England and Australia, where teams of legal experts, psychologists, scientists and journalists work together to identify potentially wrongful convictions and campaign for justice.
And there is no shortage of wrongful convictions. A report from the US Department for Justice, “Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science” showed that in the seven years from 1989, new forensic DNA testing excluded about 20 per cent of sexual assault case suspects. The five main reasons for wrongful conviction: mistaken eyewitness identification, witnesses being coerced to make confessions, misconduct by law enforcement agencies, unreliable forensic laboratory work, and ineffective representation by defence counsel. (To read the report, click here>>>)
Another report “A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995” undertaken by researchers at Columbia University that looks at mistakes in capital punishment cases - where one would expect the highest standards of care to be taken - found that “during the 23-year study period, the overall rate of prejudicial error was 68%. In other words, courts found serious, reversible error in nearly 7 of every 10 of the thousands of capital sentences that were fully reviewed during the period. Capital trials produce so many mistakes that it takes three judicial inspections to catch them - leaving grave doubt whether we do catch them all. After state courts threw out 47% of death sentences due to serious flaws, a later federal review found "serious error" - error undermining the reliability of the outcome - in 40% of the remaining sentences”. (To read the report click here>>>)
The report goes on to identify the following two main reasons for these errors: “egregiously incompetent defense lawyers who didn't even look for - and demonstrably missed - important evidence that the defendant was innocent or did not deserve to die; and police or prosecutors who did discover that kind of evidence but suppressed it, again keeping it from the jury”.
Bill Hodge, Associate Professor of Law at Auckland University, in the Forward to “Trial by Trickery” describes Keith Hunter’s work as a “relentless, detailed dissection of the Scott Watson investigation and prosecution, and a legitimate commentary on the adversary system as providing for a contest, not a search for truth”.
He goes on to describe the ‘mystery yacht’ in the case as “a forty-foot ketch, being an old-fashioned wooden vessel, with two masts, a blue feature band, a row of portholes, heaps of elaborate rope work on the decks, a high rear deck, akin to a Chinese ‘junk’, and a high step up to board”, whereas “Watson’s Blade, was a 26-foot steel sloop about half the size of the other vessel, with only a single mast and none of the features of the larger vessel, and a step down to board”.
The ‘mystery man’, who boarded the ketch with Ben and Olivia, was “repeatedly identified by witnesses unknown to each other, as a wiry man, whose face had had no recent exposure to a razor, with lank, unkempt, wavy, shoulder-length hair, wearing a green shirt” whereas “Watson, was repeatedly identified as a solid man, with close-cropped hair, clean-shaven and wearing a blue denim shirt”.
In a review of the book in the Law Society’s “Law Talk” Victoria University law lecturer and journalist Steven Price makes the point that Guy Wallace, the water taxi driver who was the main witness against Watson, now insists he was hoodwinked into making the identification. Price states that the prosecution theory that Watson could steam out into Cook Strait and dump the bodies, was physically impossible given the boat speed and timeframe, and that this “two-trip” theory - which was sprung on the jury at the last moment - was disproved by the occupants of the boat Blade was tethered to.
He concludes: “Hunter asserts that those involved in securing Watson’s conviction were party to a horrendous miscarriage of justice. He says the police were deceptive and tunnel-visioned, the media helped spread damaging misinformation, and the prosecutors misled the jury.
“They’re serious allegations. But Hunter explains his grounds for them. His case is persuasive. The onus now, I think, is on the police and prosecution to answer it. What has Hunter got wrong? What other evidence has he missed out that should convince us that Watson is guilty? Is there a good response to his allegations of police and prosecution misconduct?
“I phoned the police and asked those questions. I was told that Rob Pope, who was in charge of the Watson investigation and is now Deputy Police Commissioner, hadn’t read the book, and didn’t want to relitigate the case, which after all had been through an appeals process.
“Not good enough, I say.
“Hunter has raised serious questions here, and they go to the heart of public confidence in the administration of justice. The fact that an innocent man may be in jail is just the beginning of what should trouble us about this case”. (To read the review, click here>>>)
Keith Hunter put together a documentary on the case, “Murder on the Blade” which was screened in 2003. So convinced is he that Scott Watson is innocent, that he wrote his book to set out the issues. I invited him to be the NZCPR Guest Commentator this week in the hope that it might help to bring justice to bear. Keith’s article can be viewed by clicking the sidebar link>>>.
Announcement
The NZ Centre for Political Research is founded on the belief that a democracy flourishes when the public are kept well informed and are encouraged to have their say. Accordingly I would like to advise you that two new services to progress those goals have been added to the NZCPR.com website.
The Consultation page provides links directly to Government agencies where details of reviews and proposed regulations that are open to public submissions can be found. I would urge you to keep an eye on this page and send in your submissions where appropriate - click here to view>>>.
The Media page provides quick links to radio, newspapers and television websites. If you click the radio links you can listen to the stations while you work. You might like to set this page up as your Homepage or add it to your “Favourites” - click here to view>>>.
How much is an independent voice on politics worth to you? Is it worth as much as a cup of coffee? The NZCPR is funded totally from the voluntary donations of readers of this newsletter. Your support is greatly appreciated - please click here>>>
Poll
The poll this week asks whether you believe that the New Zealand Supreme Court offers the same level of impartiality that was offered by the Privy Council.
To vote click here>>>
[Comments received during the week on the column and the poll will be posted here>>>]
Last week's poll asked: Do you agree or disagree with the critics of the NCEA that educational standards in New Zealand are falling.
The result: 96% voted Agree, 4% voted Disagree. You can read the hundreds of comments that were submitted by clicking here>>>.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
F4J is back with vengeance
10 June 2007 11:44
Matt O'Connor was the force behind the stunts involving comic-book heroes that kept his pressure group in the news. After a year sorting out his domestic troubles, he has returned to the fray and a big surprise is planned...
Interview by Cole Moreton
Published: 10 June 2007
Holy security cordons, Batman is back. He won't be wearing tights this time but does promise to make more enemies than ever before. "This one is a fucking cracking idea," says the fast-talking Matt O'Connor, founder of the campaign group Fathers 4 Justice, with a grin. "It's the most controversial thing we have ever done. If it happens they will come down on us like a ton of bricks."
"They" are the police, the law, the politicians - the people O'Connor has been irritating since he started the most spectacular protest movement of modern times, four years ago. Batman on a ledge at Buckingham Palace. Spiderman on the London Eye. Purple powder hitting the Prime Minister in the House of Commons when the country was afraid of terrorist anthrax. They were all Fathers 4 Justice stunts. They were all condemned as irresponsible, stupid, dangerous or offensive.
Then came a plot to kidnap Leo Blair, the Prime Minister's young son, as "revealed" in The Sun in January 2006. O'Connor condemned the idea as "sick" and insisted he knew nothing about it. The story wasn't true anyway, he says. But it made him walk away, declare that his campaigning days were over. So why, after more than a year out of the headlines, is O'Connor back and promising to make the biggest stink yet?
"We have a high-profile idea that will take the protest right to the heart of government," says the 40-year-old marketing consultant, whose rapid, freewheeling sentences often morph into slogans. "Literally. To the heart of our democracy."
We are at his home in Winchester, Hampshire, a modern apartment with wooden floors and walls that are lined with framed newspaper front pages. "Purple flour bomb hits Blair," tuts The Daily Telegraph. "Flour Show Special," wisecracks Private Eye. O'Connor wears a chunky silver bracelet on his wrist in the shape of barbed wire. If the verbal machinegun that is his mouth is telling the truth, then his troops will go over the top in London some time before Father's Day next Sunday.
"There will be no men in tights," he says. "That was right for its time, but it's not for now. I won't tell you what this one is but it will fuse two highly charged issues together." Excitement blurs his estuary accent. "Among the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan 54 fathers have died, orphaning about 83 kids. There is an irony about going off to fight a phoney war on behalf of a country which doesn't even afford you the right to be a father."
He knows the risks. "Last year the police thought we were going to target the State Opening of Parliament. Scotland Yard said to me: 'Make sure you're not coming into London on the day, because you will be arrested. And if anybody tries to do anything you will be shot.' Period."
Not that the master strategist will be placing himself in front of a gun. "Erm. I've done several things... but at this moment in time it wouldn't fit in with my long-term political plans." Those include starting a new party in the autumn, to campaign against the erosion of civil liberties. That will follow the publication by Orion in August of a book called Fathers 4 Justice: The Inside Story. He has also sold the rights to a movie, although it appears to be stuck in development.
Perhaps they are toning down the lead character. In real life, Matt O'Connor looks and sounds like a cheeky chappy survivor of Britpop (he even has a union-flag guitar on a stand in the study corner of his open-plan living space). He's wearing Chelsea boots, and faded and frayed grey jeans, a black leather box jacket and a grey T-shirt that bears the logo "Fathers 4 Justice Campaigner" on a roundel.
During his time out of the headlines the campaign didn't disband as he had said it would but consolidated quietly, putting up a slick website with a merchandising operation. It still doesn't make any money though, he says. Everyone's a volunteer. O'Connor still works as a brand consultant some of the time and his hair is spiky, gelled and highlighted. His glasses have thick, funky frames. In the lobe of each ear is a small silver cross, evidence that this lapsed Catholic has recently returned to his faith.
On his dining table are books that may well have been piled there to make several points: V for Vendetta describes a dystopian, authoritarian Britain; The Audacity of Hope by the new star of American politics Barack Obama; the works of agit-prop artist Banksy; and The Book of Dave by Will Self, a novel about a disgruntled father. "It's about a right-wing mysogynistic, racist, homophobic cab driver," O'Connor protests. "I'm centre left, raised in the Labour Party, I was in the anti-apartheid movement... this is a civil rights issue."
Any film may as well open with a shot of him standing on a bridge over the Thames, late at night with a half-empty bottle of Jack Daniels in his hand, trying to jump. That happened for real six years ago when O'Connor was at his lowest. His business partner had died in an accident. The banks had foreclosed and taken away the company flat in which he was living. His ex-wife wouldn't let him see their two sons.
"It's like someone dragging a serrated knife across your heart," he says. The ex-couple were at war in the courts. "I went in like most naive, probably arrogant, slightly sexist pigs and it was a slaughterhouse. They say, 'You have no right to see your children.' Your jaw hits the floor. 'Ugh? What happened there?' Then you discover this grotesque edifice, this cathedral of cruelty which is the Royal Courts of Justice."
He's a natural spin doctor, obviously. So was he really going to jump, or just drunk and miserable? There is a long pause. "Put it this way ... I set off with the intention. There is a safety mechanism that asks how it would damage your kids. I lost my father in 1990 and I know what that does to you."
Instead he "set off on this insane adventure called Fathers 4 Justice". O'Connor himself was the force behind the stunts - such as the condom filled with flour that an F4J member threw at Tony Blair during Prime Minister's Questions in May 2004, and the scaling of Buckingham Palace by two men dressed as Batman and Robin that September. They were reviled and despised by those who said the actions endangered lives, demeaned dads and damaged the cause. But F4J also changed the nature of protest, showing how the right absurd image in the right place could dominate the news. It was bad timing and tasteless though, surely, in the wake of 9/11? "There is never a good time," he says. "Before that were the mainland bombing campaigns by the IRA."
The irony was that by F4J's peak he had sorted out his own domestic problems. "I'd been a lousy, drunken husband," he says, "but I was never a bad dad to the boys. We're a very close, tight-knit group of people. Me and my ex, Sophie, have strived to get on well since that time."
Daniel is now 11 and Alexander 10. O'Connor also has a son called Archie by his girlfriend Nadine Taylor, a fellow campaigner. Taylor was one of the F4J activists who ran on to the set of The National Lottery: Jet Set show, protesting that family law was a lottery. "She's fucking feisty," he says with pride. "Très formidable."
At its most popular Fathers 4 Justice had 12,000 paying members; now 3,000 people are registered to its website. Surprisingly, a quarter of them are women. "They have experienced family breakdown; their fathers haven't been living with them; they miss their dads. They're very supportive."
Archie was three weeks old when The Sun published its story about Leo Blair. "I knew jack shit about it," says O'Connor. "I couldn't believe it. Then the world started caving in." There was "barely a shred of truth" to the alleged plot, he says. "The organisation had been infiltrated by Scotland Yard. It was a hatchet job."
Furious and frightened, he stayed up all night talking to the media but snapped next day, on a lawn by Winchester Cathedral. Tearing off a Sky earpiece mid-interview he walked away, with the presenter calling after him. "I just didn't want to be involved any more. I was totally and utterly mentally shattered. The police, the media, the internal shenanigans, the courts, the judges... it's very difficult to remain sane."
Some people - who hated his self-confessed "dictatorial" style - didn't think he had the right to say it was all over. They called themselves Real Fathers 4 Justice and tried to put handcuffs on the then education secretary, Ruth Kelly. O'Connor admits, "There is always a danger people will go off at a tangent. One chap was threatening to blow his brains out in front of Tony Blair. You would be irresponsible if you didn't pass that information to Scotland Yard."
Fathers are now "emphatically better off" than they were four years ago, he says, not least because of the increased presumption of shared residence. "Most judges recognise and accept it. And we have started a chain of events that is unstoppable: the reform of the shambolic family justice system."
So why come back now? "I want to see mandatory mediation, before people even get to speak to their lawyers. Second thing is that both parents recognise and accept they should have equal or sensible contact. The third is that we must have an open, transparent system where the judges are held accountable for their outrageous decisions."
Maybe, as he insists, Matt O'Connor has been brought back to direct action by the stories of desperate men who come to F4J needing help. Or maybe he just can't give up the buzz of planning great stunts. And getting other people to do them. This week he - and we - will find out if they're still willing.
Further reading: 'The Book of Dave' by Will Self is published by Bloomsbury.
Matt O'Connor was the force behind the stunts involving comic-book heroes that kept his pressure group in the news. After a year sorting out his domestic troubles, he has returned to the fray and a big surprise is planned...
Interview by Cole Moreton
Published: 10 June 2007
Holy security cordons, Batman is back. He won't be wearing tights this time but does promise to make more enemies than ever before. "This one is a fucking cracking idea," says the fast-talking Matt O'Connor, founder of the campaign group Fathers 4 Justice, with a grin. "It's the most controversial thing we have ever done. If it happens they will come down on us like a ton of bricks."
"They" are the police, the law, the politicians - the people O'Connor has been irritating since he started the most spectacular protest movement of modern times, four years ago. Batman on a ledge at Buckingham Palace. Spiderman on the London Eye. Purple powder hitting the Prime Minister in the House of Commons when the country was afraid of terrorist anthrax. They were all Fathers 4 Justice stunts. They were all condemned as irresponsible, stupid, dangerous or offensive.
Then came a plot to kidnap Leo Blair, the Prime Minister's young son, as "revealed" in The Sun in January 2006. O'Connor condemned the idea as "sick" and insisted he knew nothing about it. The story wasn't true anyway, he says. But it made him walk away, declare that his campaigning days were over. So why, after more than a year out of the headlines, is O'Connor back and promising to make the biggest stink yet?
"We have a high-profile idea that will take the protest right to the heart of government," says the 40-year-old marketing consultant, whose rapid, freewheeling sentences often morph into slogans. "Literally. To the heart of our democracy."
We are at his home in Winchester, Hampshire, a modern apartment with wooden floors and walls that are lined with framed newspaper front pages. "Purple flour bomb hits Blair," tuts The Daily Telegraph. "Flour Show Special," wisecracks Private Eye. O'Connor wears a chunky silver bracelet on his wrist in the shape of barbed wire. If the verbal machinegun that is his mouth is telling the truth, then his troops will go over the top in London some time before Father's Day next Sunday.
"There will be no men in tights," he says. "That was right for its time, but it's not for now. I won't tell you what this one is but it will fuse two highly charged issues together." Excitement blurs his estuary accent. "Among the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan 54 fathers have died, orphaning about 83 kids. There is an irony about going off to fight a phoney war on behalf of a country which doesn't even afford you the right to be a father."
He knows the risks. "Last year the police thought we were going to target the State Opening of Parliament. Scotland Yard said to me: 'Make sure you're not coming into London on the day, because you will be arrested. And if anybody tries to do anything you will be shot.' Period."
Not that the master strategist will be placing himself in front of a gun. "Erm. I've done several things... but at this moment in time it wouldn't fit in with my long-term political plans." Those include starting a new party in the autumn, to campaign against the erosion of civil liberties. That will follow the publication by Orion in August of a book called Fathers 4 Justice: The Inside Story. He has also sold the rights to a movie, although it appears to be stuck in development.
Perhaps they are toning down the lead character. In real life, Matt O'Connor looks and sounds like a cheeky chappy survivor of Britpop (he even has a union-flag guitar on a stand in the study corner of his open-plan living space). He's wearing Chelsea boots, and faded and frayed grey jeans, a black leather box jacket and a grey T-shirt that bears the logo "Fathers 4 Justice Campaigner" on a roundel.
During his time out of the headlines the campaign didn't disband as he had said it would but consolidated quietly, putting up a slick website with a merchandising operation. It still doesn't make any money though, he says. Everyone's a volunteer. O'Connor still works as a brand consultant some of the time and his hair is spiky, gelled and highlighted. His glasses have thick, funky frames. In the lobe of each ear is a small silver cross, evidence that this lapsed Catholic has recently returned to his faith.
On his dining table are books that may well have been piled there to make several points: V for Vendetta describes a dystopian, authoritarian Britain; The Audacity of Hope by the new star of American politics Barack Obama; the works of agit-prop artist Banksy; and The Book of Dave by Will Self, a novel about a disgruntled father. "It's about a right-wing mysogynistic, racist, homophobic cab driver," O'Connor protests. "I'm centre left, raised in the Labour Party, I was in the anti-apartheid movement... this is a civil rights issue."
Any film may as well open with a shot of him standing on a bridge over the Thames, late at night with a half-empty bottle of Jack Daniels in his hand, trying to jump. That happened for real six years ago when O'Connor was at his lowest. His business partner had died in an accident. The banks had foreclosed and taken away the company flat in which he was living. His ex-wife wouldn't let him see their two sons.
"It's like someone dragging a serrated knife across your heart," he says. The ex-couple were at war in the courts. "I went in like most naive, probably arrogant, slightly sexist pigs and it was a slaughterhouse. They say, 'You have no right to see your children.' Your jaw hits the floor. 'Ugh? What happened there?' Then you discover this grotesque edifice, this cathedral of cruelty which is the Royal Courts of Justice."
He's a natural spin doctor, obviously. So was he really going to jump, or just drunk and miserable? There is a long pause. "Put it this way ... I set off with the intention. There is a safety mechanism that asks how it would damage your kids. I lost my father in 1990 and I know what that does to you."
Instead he "set off on this insane adventure called Fathers 4 Justice". O'Connor himself was the force behind the stunts - such as the condom filled with flour that an F4J member threw at Tony Blair during Prime Minister's Questions in May 2004, and the scaling of Buckingham Palace by two men dressed as Batman and Robin that September. They were reviled and despised by those who said the actions endangered lives, demeaned dads and damaged the cause. But F4J also changed the nature of protest, showing how the right absurd image in the right place could dominate the news. It was bad timing and tasteless though, surely, in the wake of 9/11? "There is never a good time," he says. "Before that were the mainland bombing campaigns by the IRA."
The irony was that by F4J's peak he had sorted out his own domestic problems. "I'd been a lousy, drunken husband," he says, "but I was never a bad dad to the boys. We're a very close, tight-knit group of people. Me and my ex, Sophie, have strived to get on well since that time."
Daniel is now 11 and Alexander 10. O'Connor also has a son called Archie by his girlfriend Nadine Taylor, a fellow campaigner. Taylor was one of the F4J activists who ran on to the set of The National Lottery: Jet Set show, protesting that family law was a lottery. "She's fucking feisty," he says with pride. "Très formidable."
At its most popular Fathers 4 Justice had 12,000 paying members; now 3,000 people are registered to its website. Surprisingly, a quarter of them are women. "They have experienced family breakdown; their fathers haven't been living with them; they miss their dads. They're very supportive."
Archie was three weeks old when The Sun published its story about Leo Blair. "I knew jack shit about it," says O'Connor. "I couldn't believe it. Then the world started caving in." There was "barely a shred of truth" to the alleged plot, he says. "The organisation had been infiltrated by Scotland Yard. It was a hatchet job."
Furious and frightened, he stayed up all night talking to the media but snapped next day, on a lawn by Winchester Cathedral. Tearing off a Sky earpiece mid-interview he walked away, with the presenter calling after him. "I just didn't want to be involved any more. I was totally and utterly mentally shattered. The police, the media, the internal shenanigans, the courts, the judges... it's very difficult to remain sane."
Some people - who hated his self-confessed "dictatorial" style - didn't think he had the right to say it was all over. They called themselves Real Fathers 4 Justice and tried to put handcuffs on the then education secretary, Ruth Kelly. O'Connor admits, "There is always a danger people will go off at a tangent. One chap was threatening to blow his brains out in front of Tony Blair. You would be irresponsible if you didn't pass that information to Scotland Yard."
Fathers are now "emphatically better off" than they were four years ago, he says, not least because of the increased presumption of shared residence. "Most judges recognise and accept it. And we have started a chain of events that is unstoppable: the reform of the shambolic family justice system."
So why come back now? "I want to see mandatory mediation, before people even get to speak to their lawyers. Second thing is that both parents recognise and accept they should have equal or sensible contact. The third is that we must have an open, transparent system where the judges are held accountable for their outrageous decisions."
Maybe, as he insists, Matt O'Connor has been brought back to direct action by the stories of desperate men who come to F4J needing help. Or maybe he just can't give up the buzz of planning great stunts. And getting other people to do them. This week he - and we - will find out if they're still willing.
Further reading: 'The Book of Dave' by Will Self is published by Bloomsbury.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Men , Misogyny and Misandry
Men, Misogyny and Misandry
Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson
6th April 2007
In our society’s concern for the rights of women, we’ve created another silent class of victims: men
Last week’s mass-media blitz over the cyber-bullying of blogger Kathy Sierra has reinforced the common belief that women as a class are victims and men as a class victimizers. How else can we explain pervasive misogyny?
As usual, most people accept the threats against Ms. Sierra as yet another exposure of the misogyny that contaminates boys and men. Those who react in that way demand more policing of the internet, along with even more feminist “re-education” and “zero-tolerance” policies. Deplorable as this incident is, the proposed solutions are counter-productive and even the diagnosis is inadequate.
We’ve tried the proposed solutions for decades, in fact, and have not succeeded in eliminating hostility toward women, on the contrary, such hostility might be increasing among young men. Isn’t it time to consider that the problem might be much more complex than most people have imagined so far?
That brings us to the diagnosis, which makes much of the fact that women are victims of cyber-bullying (and other forms of bullying) but ignores the fact that boys and men are as well. Men are much less likely than women to complain about it, of course, because the most “unmanly” thing that they can imagine is admitting their own vulnerability. And when they do complain, people are very unlikely to take them seriously, due to the assumption that men can take care of themselves. (Researchers have already begun to explore these problems in connection with male victims of domestic violence, sexual harassment - and yes, even rape.)
A more adequate diagnosis, therefore, would be the prevalence of hatred in our society not only toward women and minorities, but also toward every available target, including men.
Movies routinely present adult men who act like children, whether sweetly or destructively - often as eternal frat boys. Commercials routinely present them as idiots. In a recent one for Kinko’s the male office worker slops coffee all over himself due to the prospect of staying up at night making copies. His smirking female counterpart, having contacted Kinko’s, knows better. The reverse, of course, would be inconceivable. Ridiculing men, but not women, is politically correct.
The elite culture of academia, moreover, routinely relies directly or indirectly on the belief that every major problem is due ultimately to “patriarchy” (and therefore to men as a class). Many social scientists try to make this point by indulging in what we call “statistics abuse”: manipulating or even inventing statistics to show that women are either victims of men or in constant danger of becoming victims.
As a result, both judges and legislators have either allowed or mandated discrimination against men. This can be overt (establishing affirmative action programs for many groups except men) or covert and therefore systemic (interpreting and applying apparently gender-neutral laws in ways that nonetheless work against men).
Because of discrimination (but also political correctness) , the courts, schools and other institutions now care almost exclusively about the needs and problems of women.
This world view relies on the morally despicable notion of “collective guilt” and the axiom that a good end can justify evil means - in this case, the equality that institutionalized inequality is supposed to create.
But these are the symptoms of an even deeper problem, a hidden one called misandry. This word, which most people don’t even know, refers to the direct or indirect teaching of contempt for men as such.
Like misogyny, misandry is a form of hatred. And hatred isn’t an emotion, unlike anger, but a culturally propagated and institutionalized world view. Therefore, misandry is a form of sexism or even racism (given that maleness is a biological classification) .
Men still earn more money than women, some argue, so what’s their problem? This is true at the moment, but skewed statistics don’t tell the whole story. For one thing, older women often have less education and therefore less lucrative jobs than young women in this transitional age. Women in general often lack the experience to negotiate for entrance salaries and promotions; avoiding high-risk, high-mobility and therefore high - paying jobs; decide to stay at home with young children; and so on.
Nonetheless, no group has ever improved its economic status more quickly than women already have without resorting to political revolution. Given new “equality” programs, in fact, and given the downward mobility of men in connection with both education and income, women will soon overtake men.
Most politicians are men, others argue, so men don’t need any protection. But men aren’t the only ones who vote them into office. More important, women have acquired a great deal of power by establishing lobby groups and even government agencies such as Status of Women Canada, acquiring government grants for research on women, implementing their policies indirectly (through bureaucratic fiat behind closed doors instead of public discussion in legislative assemblies), and so forth. Although the women’s movement has not produced utopia, it has greatly improved the lives of women.
There can be no such thing as discrimination against men, allegedly, because legislators always use egalitarian language. And yet women have effectively had laws reinterpreted in their favour by appealing to Charter law, The Court Challenges program, and human-rights commissions. Because the courts have excluded men from the list of the groups that have suffered historically from discrimination, here or elsewhere, (even though governments have routinely conscripted only men for military or labour service), the perspective of men is seldom even heard in the public square.
Men have caused every problem that women face, supposedly, and therefore deserve no protection for themselves. Most Canadians wouldn’t make this argument, at least not explicitly, but some do. And they’re wrong for several reasons.
For one thing, they rely on what we call the “conspiracy theory of history.” But the world, even the patriarchal world, doesn’t revolve around women. Men haven’t spent the past 10,000 years thinking about nothing other than how to afflict women.
Moreover, men (and boys) clearly do have problems that would evoke concern in any society worth living in. Besides, revenge has nothing to do with morality. In other words, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Despite the few alpha males, we need to examine these assumptions in view of some very obvious indicators that men as a class are in trouble. Think, for instance, of education. According to the Canadian Council on Learning, 12 percent of boys but only seven percent of girls drop out of high school. Male student are already a minority in Canadian universities, and yet how many have established affirmative- action programs for men? If this trend continues, the inevitable result will be an undereducated and impoverished male underclass.
Most men, as we say , are still reluctant to admit that they can be vulnerable and therefore need to defend themselves as a class. But those who do speak out in public - politicians , journalists, academics, and so on - know that challenging any feminist idea can amount to political or professional suicide; being denounced as misogynists.
As for those in the business world - entertainment, say, or advertising - they know that misandry sells, just as misogyny once did. In fact, it’s the one form of prejudice that remains respectable.
Only by acknowledging misandry as yet another form of hatred, facing the growth of male underclass, and taking seriously the full humanity of all people will we begin to solve the larger and deeper problem of hatred itself.
At the moment, many people deplore hatred toward some people but not others. Moral consistency does not allow that, and human psychology doesn’t tolerate it for long.
It’s time to wake up.
http://www.canada. com/ottawacitize n/news/opinion/ story.html? id=044bc793- ca33-4cad- 95a6-36d4a4ef8ac d&k=81394
This article was submitted to and published by the Ottawa Citizen on April 6th. It was written by Katherine Young (a professor at McGill University ) and Paul Nathanson (a senior researcher there). They are the authors of Spreading Misandry: the Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (2001) and Legalizing Misandry: from Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men (2006), both published by McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Distributed by:
Jeremy Swanson
Fathers and Men's Rights Activist
" For The Children”
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
The true neighbour will risk his position, his prestige and even his life for the welfare of others". (Strength in Love -1963)
Martin Luther King (1929-1968)
Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson
6th April 2007
In our society’s concern for the rights of women, we’ve created another silent class of victims: men
Last week’s mass-media blitz over the cyber-bullying of blogger Kathy Sierra has reinforced the common belief that women as a class are victims and men as a class victimizers. How else can we explain pervasive misogyny?
As usual, most people accept the threats against Ms. Sierra as yet another exposure of the misogyny that contaminates boys and men. Those who react in that way demand more policing of the internet, along with even more feminist “re-education” and “zero-tolerance” policies. Deplorable as this incident is, the proposed solutions are counter-productive and even the diagnosis is inadequate.
We’ve tried the proposed solutions for decades, in fact, and have not succeeded in eliminating hostility toward women, on the contrary, such hostility might be increasing among young men. Isn’t it time to consider that the problem might be much more complex than most people have imagined so far?
That brings us to the diagnosis, which makes much of the fact that women are victims of cyber-bullying (and other forms of bullying) but ignores the fact that boys and men are as well. Men are much less likely than women to complain about it, of course, because the most “unmanly” thing that they can imagine is admitting their own vulnerability. And when they do complain, people are very unlikely to take them seriously, due to the assumption that men can take care of themselves. (Researchers have already begun to explore these problems in connection with male victims of domestic violence, sexual harassment - and yes, even rape.)
A more adequate diagnosis, therefore, would be the prevalence of hatred in our society not only toward women and minorities, but also toward every available target, including men.
Movies routinely present adult men who act like children, whether sweetly or destructively - often as eternal frat boys. Commercials routinely present them as idiots. In a recent one for Kinko’s the male office worker slops coffee all over himself due to the prospect of staying up at night making copies. His smirking female counterpart, having contacted Kinko’s, knows better. The reverse, of course, would be inconceivable. Ridiculing men, but not women, is politically correct.
The elite culture of academia, moreover, routinely relies directly or indirectly on the belief that every major problem is due ultimately to “patriarchy” (and therefore to men as a class). Many social scientists try to make this point by indulging in what we call “statistics abuse”: manipulating or even inventing statistics to show that women are either victims of men or in constant danger of becoming victims.
As a result, both judges and legislators have either allowed or mandated discrimination against men. This can be overt (establishing affirmative action programs for many groups except men) or covert and therefore systemic (interpreting and applying apparently gender-neutral laws in ways that nonetheless work against men).
Because of discrimination (but also political correctness) , the courts, schools and other institutions now care almost exclusively about the needs and problems of women.
This world view relies on the morally despicable notion of “collective guilt” and the axiom that a good end can justify evil means - in this case, the equality that institutionalized inequality is supposed to create.
But these are the symptoms of an even deeper problem, a hidden one called misandry. This word, which most people don’t even know, refers to the direct or indirect teaching of contempt for men as such.
Like misogyny, misandry is a form of hatred. And hatred isn’t an emotion, unlike anger, but a culturally propagated and institutionalized world view. Therefore, misandry is a form of sexism or even racism (given that maleness is a biological classification) .
Men still earn more money than women, some argue, so what’s their problem? This is true at the moment, but skewed statistics don’t tell the whole story. For one thing, older women often have less education and therefore less lucrative jobs than young women in this transitional age. Women in general often lack the experience to negotiate for entrance salaries and promotions; avoiding high-risk, high-mobility and therefore high - paying jobs; decide to stay at home with young children; and so on.
Nonetheless, no group has ever improved its economic status more quickly than women already have without resorting to political revolution. Given new “equality” programs, in fact, and given the downward mobility of men in connection with both education and income, women will soon overtake men.
Most politicians are men, others argue, so men don’t need any protection. But men aren’t the only ones who vote them into office. More important, women have acquired a great deal of power by establishing lobby groups and even government agencies such as Status of Women Canada, acquiring government grants for research on women, implementing their policies indirectly (through bureaucratic fiat behind closed doors instead of public discussion in legislative assemblies), and so forth. Although the women’s movement has not produced utopia, it has greatly improved the lives of women.
There can be no such thing as discrimination against men, allegedly, because legislators always use egalitarian language. And yet women have effectively had laws reinterpreted in their favour by appealing to Charter law, The Court Challenges program, and human-rights commissions. Because the courts have excluded men from the list of the groups that have suffered historically from discrimination, here or elsewhere, (even though governments have routinely conscripted only men for military or labour service), the perspective of men is seldom even heard in the public square.
Men have caused every problem that women face, supposedly, and therefore deserve no protection for themselves. Most Canadians wouldn’t make this argument, at least not explicitly, but some do. And they’re wrong for several reasons.
For one thing, they rely on what we call the “conspiracy theory of history.” But the world, even the patriarchal world, doesn’t revolve around women. Men haven’t spent the past 10,000 years thinking about nothing other than how to afflict women.
Moreover, men (and boys) clearly do have problems that would evoke concern in any society worth living in. Besides, revenge has nothing to do with morality. In other words, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Despite the few alpha males, we need to examine these assumptions in view of some very obvious indicators that men as a class are in trouble. Think, for instance, of education. According to the Canadian Council on Learning, 12 percent of boys but only seven percent of girls drop out of high school. Male student are already a minority in Canadian universities, and yet how many have established affirmative- action programs for men? If this trend continues, the inevitable result will be an undereducated and impoverished male underclass.
Most men, as we say , are still reluctant to admit that they can be vulnerable and therefore need to defend themselves as a class. But those who do speak out in public - politicians , journalists, academics, and so on - know that challenging any feminist idea can amount to political or professional suicide; being denounced as misogynists.
As for those in the business world - entertainment, say, or advertising - they know that misandry sells, just as misogyny once did. In fact, it’s the one form of prejudice that remains respectable.
Only by acknowledging misandry as yet another form of hatred, facing the growth of male underclass, and taking seriously the full humanity of all people will we begin to solve the larger and deeper problem of hatred itself.
At the moment, many people deplore hatred toward some people but not others. Moral consistency does not allow that, and human psychology doesn’t tolerate it for long.
It’s time to wake up.
http://www.canada. com/ottawacitize n/news/opinion/ story.html? id=044bc793- ca33-4cad- 95a6-36d4a4ef8ac d&k=81394
This article was submitted to and published by the Ottawa Citizen on April 6th. It was written by Katherine Young (a professor at McGill University ) and Paul Nathanson (a senior researcher there). They are the authors of Spreading Misandry: the Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (2001) and Legalizing Misandry: from Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men (2006), both published by McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Distributed by:
Jeremy Swanson
Fathers and Men's Rights Activist
" For The Children”
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
The true neighbour will risk his position, his prestige and even his life for the welfare of others". (Strength in Love -1963)
Martin Luther King (1929-1968)
Friday, June 1, 2007
Conference & Rally on the case of Alec Baldwin
Please distribute, blog, and re-post this press release. Let's get the word out and if you are in the LA area please attend.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Attention: Assignment Editor
Press Conference & Rally on the case of Alec Baldwin
FROM: Children’s Rights Initiative for Sharing Parents Equally (CRISPE).
EVENT: Supporters and advocates from a coalition of state and national organizations for children’s rights, sharing parents equally, and ending parental alienation will be rallying and demonstrating at Alec Baldwin’s custody hearing.
WHEN: June 5, 2007.
TIME: 8:00 A.M. until 11:00 A.M.
LOCATION: Los Angeles Courthouse, 110 North Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
Alec Baldwin, like hundreds of thousands of parents, is alienated from his child. Parental Alienation is when one parent causes their child to be indifferent or hateful toward the other parent. The family court system facilitates Parental Alienation by ensuring a continuation of hostility between parents. The driving forces behind the adversarial nature of the family court system; are money and ideologically driven political interests. None of which are in the best interests of the family, particularly the children.
Mr. Baldwin’s frustration is like many parents alienated from their children. Many parents go for years not seeing their children despite the fact they have a court order allowing them to see their children. The solution is “a presumption of legal and physical 50/50 shared parenting,” says Larry Kerkman, President of CRISPE. Harry Crouch, Director of California Men’s Center of San Diego says, “Parental Alienation is a horrendous form of child abuse and domestic violence, for which abusive parents should be held accountable, but are not.” Donald Tenn spokesman for Fathers-4-Justice further states. “It is an unfortunate fact of life that all too many fathers can relate to the frustration which we heard in Alec Baldwin’s voicemail message to his daughter, Ireland. It is also unfortunate, that in what is supposed to be a civilized society, medieval decisions are being made by this country’s family courts which will adversely affect our families and society as a whole for generations to come.”
CRISPE and the coalition formed, like Mr. Baldwin, are determined to affect the necessary reforms to ensure that all children have the opportunity to share their parents equally.
For additional information or to schedule interviews please contact:
Press Contact
Marcy Ganz, Public Relations Specialist
(888) 827-4773 or (619) 233-4773
pr@crispe.org
http://www.crispe.org
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Attention: Assignment Editor
Press Conference & Rally on the case of Alec Baldwin
FROM: Children’s Rights Initiative for Sharing Parents Equally (CRISPE).
EVENT: Supporters and advocates from a coalition of state and national organizations for children’s rights, sharing parents equally, and ending parental alienation will be rallying and demonstrating at Alec Baldwin’s custody hearing.
WHEN: June 5, 2007.
TIME: 8:00 A.M. until 11:00 A.M.
LOCATION: Los Angeles Courthouse, 110 North Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
Alec Baldwin, like hundreds of thousands of parents, is alienated from his child. Parental Alienation is when one parent causes their child to be indifferent or hateful toward the other parent. The family court system facilitates Parental Alienation by ensuring a continuation of hostility between parents. The driving forces behind the adversarial nature of the family court system; are money and ideologically driven political interests. None of which are in the best interests of the family, particularly the children.
Mr. Baldwin’s frustration is like many parents alienated from their children. Many parents go for years not seeing their children despite the fact they have a court order allowing them to see their children. The solution is “a presumption of legal and physical 50/50 shared parenting,” says Larry Kerkman, President of CRISPE. Harry Crouch, Director of California Men’s Center of San Diego says, “Parental Alienation is a horrendous form of child abuse and domestic violence, for which abusive parents should be held accountable, but are not.” Donald Tenn spokesman for Fathers-4-Justice further states. “It is an unfortunate fact of life that all too many fathers can relate to the frustration which we heard in Alec Baldwin’s voicemail message to his daughter, Ireland. It is also unfortunate, that in what is supposed to be a civilized society, medieval decisions are being made by this country’s family courts which will adversely affect our families and society as a whole for generations to come.”
CRISPE and the coalition formed, like Mr. Baldwin, are determined to affect the necessary reforms to ensure that all children have the opportunity to share their parents equally.
For additional information or to schedule interviews please contact:
Press Contact
Marcy Ganz, Public Relations Specialist
(888) 827-4773 or (619) 233-4773
pr@crispe.org
http://www.crispe.org
###
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)