The Great Divide
They say they are not violent- they say they have the protection and well being of children in mind...yet the language of abuse and hatred is used time and time again.
We have not seen the equivalent vitriol written by the many men and women who wish only to protect children from violence .
There is a plethora of bad language and abuse levelled against any person who dares to disagree with the opinions of the radical elements of the "men's rights" lobbyists.
We are told that women "who love their men agree with us". We are bombarded with arguments that state that the only protection children need, is not to be removed from a particular parent's care and control or that restoring family sanctity and 'headship' (ie 'male headship) will solve all societal problems.
All of these statements have an element of truth - we all desire intact families and loving relationships, but are in practice, the thin edge of the wedge that opens the door wide to unsafe parents continuing to harass and terrorise.
The following documents are published to illustrate the "great divide" between those who stand for child safety first and foremost as distinct from those who see the greater problem as being the "interference and dismantling of families".
Until such time as there is an agreement that we need a process to sort out the dangerous from the protective, it seems that there will be no unity, no pooling of resources to improve the child protection system....and in the meantime pedophiles and abusive parents are free to do as they wish.
Do we really need all these fathers?
DADS?
Who needs them?
Dads are dangerous. Stepdads are deadly.
This article was forwarded to many with the introduction below:
which makes one wonder about the ilk of those who are promoting the 'anti fatherlessness' agenda.
"No doubt we are all aware how the cornerstone of society, "the Family", is being destroyed - internally and externally - by the forces of evil, and the consequences thereto. After reading the "article" could anybody hold a straight face and say that the shit4brains, pindicked moron author (of the article) is not a good enough reason to inflate the statistics by 1!!! What chance does a cohesive and harmonious society have of existing in the face of the bile spewing from the likes of this despicable dr
$33BILLION CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
Today Edward Dabrowski launched his 3-point plan for healing and justice rights for families... Children were being robbed of their life with a parent and headship in families was being removed, along with children’s sense of themselves, their personal identity, and their development as complete persons.
Recovery Orders would prevent 'exclusion'
If people would recognise that it will only stop once children are protected from having one parent "disqualified" in the first place - ie: with a Recovery of Contact Order, effective immediately and answerable in Court within days (like an AVO). The immediate enforcement of an RCO could be delayed by laying criminal charges with the Police of abuse of neglect of the children.
"Please explain??"
Mainstream women, who love the men in their lives and believe in equality for men and women, are poorly represented by the screeching anti-male feminist hate groups which the government funds. This funding of extreme anti-father groups distorts the public debate and distorts the government's own perception of reality
From a grandmother
My frustration with the men's groups forced me to walk away even though I have concerns for the male child that I have in my care but could not get through to the men's radical groups that they were wrong in their approach in only stating that men should have more rights. There are times when neither parent is safe to leave a child in their care. But the Family Court treats extended family members as interfering problems.
In the years I spent trying to get through to the men who attend those groups it taught me that sadly when it comes to speaking out they are only their for themselves.
The Politics of Father Rights Activists – Do persistent critics of the Family Court behave in a way which stands up to scrutiny
This paper scrutinises the behaviour and language of the two major father’s rights activists organisations, the Shared Parenting Council of Australia (SPCA), and the Fatherhood Foundation (FF), particularly in relation to issues of violence against women and children and how these intersect with the emergent contemporary discourse of “fatherlessness” assertion and role models for children. Further this paper will provide evidence that the internet based collectives affiliated to the two key fathers’ rights activists organisations incite virulent hatred of, and harmful action towards targeted women and their perceived supporters. This paper examines why these two key Fathers’ Rights Activist Organisations (FRAO) are gaining such open access and encouragement to/from politicians when much of their agenda expresses high levels of hate and vitriol against women and why this is seemingly ignored in public discourse to the detriment of women’s and children’s safety.
The Murder of Jamie Bulger
Who can forget the murder of the little 3 year old in England by two ten year old boys? We believe they have been released and granted new lives, in Australia, or perhaps another country. And the saddest thing of all about the Jamie Bulger story is that it is not finished yet. Not by a long shot..And what does Jamie Bulger have to do with Family Law? Everything!!
Because the terribly sad thing is that two young men, so horrifically sadistic as boys, will be entitled to form relationships and have children. Their chosen partners/wives will not be entitled to know anything of their past, unless they disclose voluntarily to them.