Tag Archives: legal bias

Has your ‘Male Privilege’ got you down?

Is the bias against men at work, in the family court, and even in the home becoming a painful burden for you. It’s not surprising. Well, maybe this will help — a little shot of self-esteem from someone who doesn’t have to do it. Prof. Janice Fiamengo, the University of Ottawa, Canada, has an ongoing series of videos that debunk feminist propaganda. In this video she discusses the indispensable nature of men. Just what you need; nice.

The Fiamengo File Episode 15

Equal Parenting solves “parent conflict”

It’s a shame that we have to go to so much trouble just to state the obvious. This is what happens when an outlandish ideology takes hold of the ruling class. In this case it’s feminism that after decades of screaming and badgering has managed to infest the legal, political, and media spheres. Consequently stupidity has ruled in family law for many decades, particularly from the early part of the 20th century. Of course there was that glorious period in the ‘sixties’ when the hope of equality was showing its face as the laws were, at least superficially, turned into gender neutral territory. That equality quickly vanished when the feminists saw women’s historical special status starting to disappear They claimed victim status contrary to any kind of logic, reason, or fact. The current state of misandry throughout our family law system is the result of the bullies and their toadies who currently decide the fate of families, with the resulting indentured servitude of fathers and the collateral damage in many families, and to our society.

Dr. Kruk, in the referenced document, gives the scientific data on the outcomes for separated families when there is “family conflict”. Equal parenting is shown to be far better than the feminist solution that has been the norm for so many unfortunate separated fathers and children for decades. Those improvements in family outcome with equal parenting are not only undeniable from the data but were always to be expected because they are so reasonable to anyone other than a rabid feminist or family-law lawyer. Of course, requiring scientific support for equal parenting should not be necessary in any society that claims equality of rights regardless of gender, but then our present ruling class has never really believed in such a thing, has it? What is it about equality that is so hard to understand?

Co-Parenting and High Conflict

More security equipment equals more injustice

Karen Selick (see referenced article) makes a good point about access to justice. It’s a sad commentary on the courts when ordinary citizens in the general public are subjected to security restrictions in their own courthouses. In fact, in Ontario Canada, the jurisdiction in which Ms. Selick practices law, the Courts of Justice Act specifies that the courts are open to the public. In spite of that law the public entering most court houses is subjected now to security searches by the Police. Police are present at all times in the courts. It is not uncommon for litigants to be arrested in the courthouses by the Police for charges having nothing to do with their behaviour in the courts.

Letting the Police vet those entering the courts is a violation of the separation between the Police and Judiciary. In other words Ontario’s courts are Police traps, making them inaccessible to many people who would go to the courts for help or to support those who are going to court. Running a Police gauntlet is hardly an open court system. Indeed, it is much closer to a Star Chamber.

There are, of course, the usual public-safety smoke screens — protecting the public including witnesses from the criminals and terrorists. However, terrorism is a red herring as Ontario’s other public places such as subways and shopping malls receive no such treatment. Protection of the public is the job of the Judiciary, performed according to law by placing known criminals and suspected criminals behind bars. The presumption of innocence is a rule that Police should never be permitted to ignore. As long as the courts are afraid of the general public, they should expect the public to be highly dubious of the courts.

As Ms. Selick points out, the predominant issue bringing the courts into disrepute, and causing most of its problems is family law. Blatant and continuing injustice, harassment, and robbery by the family courts can only result in total breakdown of the respect for the Law; and the resultant tyranny can go either way. Meanwhile Ontario citizens, like those in many other western countries, can expect to increasingly live under the Mubarak/Assad/Soviet/etc. conditions Ontarians despise, blindly believing it could not happen in Ontario.

fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/08/karen-selick-your-honour-whats-with-the-bulletproof-glass/
National Post, Feb 8, 2012 – 7:30 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 7, 2012 7:00 PM ET
Karen Selick: Your honour, what’s with the bulletproof glass?
It’s no wonder courthouses fear the public. These days, people view courts as purveyors of injustice …
Karen Selick is the litigation director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

Don’t let the Pros set family law

Family Law is a growth industry. At the trough, gorging on the lost futures of our children, are the family-law lawyers, attorneys, judges, court staff, politicians, the child-support Tonton Macoute, and of course the feminista child-abduction centres, as well as a plethora of apparatchiks running the government programs designed to amputate fathers from families.

The Canadian Equal Parenting Council (CEPC) is right to point out that Children’s Issues are Parenting Issues and that parents need a voice to provide balance to media coverage of children’s and family issues. In the coverage of children’s issues, the voice of parents is often missing, and too often denigrated or dismissed as self-serving or self-interest. The “professionals” and “experts” so often quoted have their own agendas and financial interests involved. Without the viewpoint of parents, who do successfully the vast majority of child-raising, the issues are one sided and incomplete.

Parents are stereotyped unfairly as “deadbeat dads” or “lazy welfare moms”. Often, governments refer to professionals in law and social agencies as the only “stakeholders”, while neglecting or refusing equal consultations with parents. It’s the parents (in particular, the fathers) and children who are the victims of the misguided and selfish actions of those stakeholders who are so clearly in a conflict of interest through their industry profit objectives.

canadianepc.org

And if you believe this: Work and Pensions Minister Maria Miller says the new system will help more children get the cash they are owed

According to the headline “Absent town dads owe £9m” (Hartlepool Mail, 3 February 2012). Let’s understand this. We are really talking about fathers, perfectly good parents, who had done no wrong. Nevertheless, they have had their children abducted by the mother under colour of law in the misandric family courts. Why would the parent who is a victim of a child abduction would owe the perpetrator anything? This is the worst human rights abuse of our time. Clearly the debt is properly owed to these ex-fathers for their loss.

As far as the “cash [the children] are owed” addressed by the Minister is concerned, yes, the children are owed plenty. They are owed as the victims of the Divorce Industry for the painful, unnecessary, and wrongful loss of their fathers. As long as the the people of Hartlepool continue to force this travesty on separated fathers and children, let the people of Hartlepool pay for this crime against humanity. And the sooner the score is settled justly the sooner the problem of separated fathers and children will end.

www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk
Absent town dads owe £9m
Published on Friday 3 February 2012 10:11
ABSENT parents in Hartlepool owe a whopping £9m in unpaid child support.
The town’s child maintenance debt reached £9,071,000 in December last year, up four per cent on the previous year’s figure of £8,743,000. …

Tell-tale lie: “child’s welfare is the paramount consideration”

According news, Britain is about to ‘enshrine’ parents’ right to their child in the child welfare law. Oops, no, it’s actually the child’s right to both parents. Well, that’s one big difference. It means that someone can decide for the child that the child does want to exercise that right. So bring on the lawyers. That’s the first issue. Then we see that Mr Loughton, one of the select ministers working on the new law, says (according to the linked article in the Telegraph by Christopher Hope), “Quite clearly, ordinary living and working arrangements make an equal division impossible, and undesirable, in all but a small minority of cases.” So, with that flip of the lip, equal parenting is gone. Bring on the lawyers. Then, as a ‘coup de grace’ to the long maligned fathers of Britain, said minister adds, “the most important thing remains the principle that the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration and this must not be diluted.” So we must still decide precisely how child’s welfare is best achieved — bring on the lawyers. We see then that the minister throws out any sense of changing the mantra “the best interests of the child” that has destroyed fathers and families ‘en masse’ for generations, and effectively announces “Divorce Industry as usual”.

Here’s what the select ministers including Mr Loughton need to know and understand:

Parental rights: parents do have rights including equality rights just like everyone else in every other aspect of modern society;

Equal parenting: 50-50 parenting is easy to arrange in all but the most unusual cases because it does not have to be on a daily, or a weekly, or a monthly, or even on a yearly basis — it just has to work out that the parents share the child equally over time (no need to chop the child in two as proposed by King Solomon);

Welfare of the child: the community standard for the welfare of the child across the western world is protection of the child from abuse and neglect. It is a matter between the child-protection agency and any remiss parent. Child welfare has no business being discussed in family separation arrangements unless the child protection agency is engaged in the matter. Family law should encourage diversity in parenting (subject to the community standard) just as we encourage diversity throughout modern society, including our schools. Applying different standards for child welfare to parents in separation is arbitrary and unfair to both parents and to the child and it must be defeated in the best interests of a just society.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9058018/Children-win-legal-right-to-see-both-parents-after-divorce.html