Mail
By Erin Pizzey
29th July 2008
Comment
Harriet Harman recently made a leaden attempt at self-deprecating humour. In response to a House of Commons question about her leadership ambitions, she said that she could not possibly become Prime Minister because, if she did, then the nation’s airports would be filled with men trying to flee the country.
The joke caused bewildered looks rather than laughs, partly because of her lack of comic timing, but more importantly because there is nothing funny about her aggressively feminist agenda, which treats men as either second-class citizens or a menace to society.
Harman may try to raise a titter by playing on her reputation as a hardline women’s rights campaigner. But, in reality, men would be right to shudder if she were to seize the reins of power.
Throughout her political career, Ms Harman has promoted the extreme feminist cause.
She recently introduced an outrageously misnamed ‘Equality Bill’, which actually proposed to give legal sanction to overt discrimination against men in job recruitment.
The scheme was dressed up as an attempt to combat prejudice against women in the workplace, but in reality made anti-male bias acceptable.
Now comes an even more sinister move. Yesterday, Ms Harman — who, worryingly, is acting Prime Minister during Gordon Brown’s summer holiday — set out new proposals that may lead to a change in the law in cases of murder involving domestic violence.
As she revealed, she has embarked on a consultation process to decide whether victims of domestic violence who kill their partners should be allowed to plead provocation where they claim to be living in fear of future attacks.
At present, the defence of provocation can be used only when an individual kills during a sudden loss of self-control — during a fight, for example.
By Erin Pizzey
29th July 2008
Comment
Harriet Harman recently made a leaden attempt at self-deprecating humour. In response to a House of Commons question about her leadership ambitions, she said that she could not possibly become Prime Minister because, if she did, then the nation’s airports would be filled with men trying to flee the country.The joke caused bewildered looks rather than laughs, partly because of her lack of comic timing, but more importantly because there is nothing funny about her aggressively feminist agenda, which treats men as either second-class citizens or a menace to society.
Harman may try to raise a titter by playing on her reputation as a hardline women’s rights campaigner. But, in reality, men would be right to shudder if she were to seize the reins of power.
Throughout her political career, Ms Harman has promoted the extreme feminist cause.
She recently introduced an outrageously misnamed ‘Equality Bill’, which actually proposed to give legal sanction to overt discrimination against men in job recruitment.
The scheme was dressed up as an attempt to combat prejudice against women in the workplace, but in reality made anti-male bias acceptable.
Now comes an even more sinister move. Yesterday, Ms Harman — who, worryingly, is acting Prime Minister during Gordon Brown’s summer holiday — set out new proposals that may lead to a change in the law in cases of murder involving domestic violence.
As she revealed, she has embarked on a consultation process to decide whether victims of domestic violence who kill their partners should be allowed to plead provocation where they claim to be living in fear of future attacks.
At present, the defence of provocation can be used only when an individual kills during a sudden loss of self-control — during a fight, for example.
28 July 2008: The new, improved, disposable father
Britain and Canada are well ahead in the race to make fatherhood completely redundant.
Jennifer Roback Morse
26 June 2008
Comments
Last fall, I debated same-sex marriage at a university in Florida. I argued that treating same-sex unions identically with marriage would lead to marginalizing fathers from the family even more than they already are. At the time, I viewed that as a long-term prediction. I did not realize I would be proven correct in less than a year.
Fertility clinics in the United Kingdom used to be required to consider the child’s need for a father before they agree to artificial insemination for unmarried women.
But recently, that rule was revoked. Parliament did not want to imply that the children of legally married lesbian couples would somehow be at risk.
In the parliamentary debate, Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith said the absence of a father had a “detrimental effect” on a child. Labour MP Geraldine Smith appealed to “common sense” in the need for a “father figure”. These advocates for fathers noted that lesbian couples and single mothers were still able to obtain fertility treatment.
Jennifer Roback Morse
26 June 2008
Comments
Last fall, I debated same-sex marriage at a university in Florida. I argued that treating same-sex unions identically with marriage would lead to marginalizing fathers from the family even more than they already are. At the time, I viewed that as a long-term prediction. I did not realize I would be proven correct in less than a year.
Fertility clinics in the United Kingdom used to be required to consider the child’s need for a father before they agree to artificial insemination for unmarried women.
But recently, that rule was revoked. Parliament did not want to imply that the children of legally married lesbian couples would somehow be at risk.
In the parliamentary debate, Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith said the absence of a father had a “detrimental effect” on a child. Labour MP Geraldine Smith appealed to “common sense” in the need for a “father figure”. These advocates for fathers noted that lesbian couples and single mothers were still able to obtain fertility treatment.
27 July 2008: Judges rule adoption case a 'disgrace'
Times Online
Frances Gibb, Legal Editor
Britain’s most senior family judge yesterday lifted a prohibition on the publication of details of a care proceedings case so that the public could form its own view of the behaviour of the local authority in the case, Medway Council in Kent, and the decisions of the court to date.
The highly unusual move came after an application by The Times and a series of articles questioning the “secrecy” of the family courts and the lack of redress afforded those caught up in the family justice system.
The decision of Sir Mark Potter, President of the Family Division, is welcome. But it would be wrong to categorise family judges as only acting defensively in the face of a barrage of press criticism or being on the back foot.
Frances Gibb, Legal Editor
Britain’s most senior family judge yesterday lifted a prohibition on the publication of details of a care proceedings case so that the public could form its own view of the behaviour of the local authority in the case, Medway Council in Kent, and the decisions of the court to date.
The highly unusual move came after an application by The Times and a series of articles questioning the “secrecy” of the family courts and the lack of redress afforded those caught up in the family justice system.
The decision of Sir Mark Potter, President of the Family Division, is welcome. But it would be wrong to categorise family judges as only acting defensively in the face of a barrage of press criticism or being on the back foot.
18 July 2008: From Canada - Barbara Kay on The unfair perils of divorced fathers: For the sake of the children
National Post
Barbara Kay
In the 1979 movie Kramer vs. Kramer, a New York mother bored with child care bolts to Los Angeles “to find herself,” leaving her husband suddenly in sole charge of their little son.
The heart of the movie is the riveting evolution of a patriarchy-era father — career-obsessed, domestically disengaged — into a New Man: putting career ambitions second to his child’s needs, parenting clumsily and frantically at first, but eventually with tender efficiency.
Not without realistic missteps and emotional pain along the way, they form a loving bond. The child is happy. Nevertheless, when the mother swoops back into town 18 months later and sues for custody, a patriarchy-era court ignores the dad’s obviously superior moral claim — and the child’s wishes — awarding the mom custody on the basis of her gender.
Thirty years later, New Men are the norm in bourgeois society. But the instinct to privilege the mother-child nexus, ironically a dominant feature of both the sentimentalist patriarchy and today’s feminist-dominated family law, continues to rule in family court.
As many New Men are shocked to learn, all the midnight feedings, bedtime stories and soothing band-aid applications to scraped knees count for nothing against morally indefensible gender bias in family court: In 90% of litigated custody cases, the mother gains sole custody.
Thus, with mom-friendly courts always the trump card up a mother’s sleeve, even the best of fathers in all custody negotiations must depend on the mother’s good will rather than justice for anything approaching equal access to his children.
Barbara Kay
In the 1979 movie Kramer vs. Kramer, a New York mother bored with child care bolts to Los Angeles “to find herself,” leaving her husband suddenly in sole charge of their little son.The heart of the movie is the riveting evolution of a patriarchy-era father — career-obsessed, domestically disengaged — into a New Man: putting career ambitions second to his child’s needs, parenting clumsily and frantically at first, but eventually with tender efficiency.
Not without realistic missteps and emotional pain along the way, they form a loving bond. The child is happy. Nevertheless, when the mother swoops back into town 18 months later and sues for custody, a patriarchy-era court ignores the dad’s obviously superior moral claim — and the child’s wishes — awarding the mom custody on the basis of her gender.
Thirty years later, New Men are the norm in bourgeois society. But the instinct to privilege the mother-child nexus, ironically a dominant feature of both the sentimentalist patriarchy and today’s feminist-dominated family law, continues to rule in family court.
As many New Men are shocked to learn, all the midnight feedings, bedtime stories and soothing band-aid applications to scraped knees count for nothing against morally indefensible gender bias in family court: In 90% of litigated custody cases, the mother gains sole custody.
Thus, with mom-friendly courts always the trump card up a mother’s sleeve, even the best of fathers in all custody negotiations must depend on the mother’s good will rather than justice for anything approaching equal access to his children.
By Daily Mail Reporter
The father of two children killed by their paranoid schizophrenic mother today condemned a new report into their deaths as 'scandalous'.
Jimi Ogunkoya's son and daughter died at the hands of his former partner after doctors failed to spot the danger and social workers allowed her unsupervised access.
Vivian Gamor, 29, had stopped taking her medication days before she killed Antoine, 10, and three-year-old Kenniece at her Hackney flat on 27 January last year.
Killed: Antoine, 10, was battered with a hammer and Kenniece, three, suffocated with clingfilm at their mother's Hackney flat
Antoine was bludgeoned with a claw hammer after his mother tried to strangle him.
She suffocated his sister with clingfilm and left her in a bin bag before setting fire to the flat and calling 999.
Mr Ogunkoya cared for the children and had repeatedly told the authorities of his fears about Gamor, who believed her real children had died in the womb and were swapped at birth.
But Hackney social services allowed her visiting rights against his wishes after doctors failed to realise she posed a physical threat to the children, partly because she did not live with them.
Vivian Garmor,
The father of two children killed by their paranoid schizophrenic mother today condemned a new report into their deaths as 'scandalous'.
Jimi Ogunkoya's son and daughter died at the hands of his former partner after doctors failed to spot the danger and social workers allowed her unsupervised access.
Vivian Gamor, 29, had stopped taking her medication days before she killed Antoine, 10, and three-year-old Kenniece at her Hackney flat on 27 January last year.
Killed: Antoine, 10, was battered with a hammer and Kenniece, three, suffocated with clingfilm at their mother's Hackney flatAntoine was bludgeoned with a claw hammer after his mother tried to strangle him.
She suffocated his sister with clingfilm and left her in a bin bag before setting fire to the flat and calling 999.
Mr Ogunkoya cared for the children and had repeatedly told the authorities of his fears about Gamor, who believed her real children had died in the womb and were swapped at birth.
But Hackney social services allowed her visiting rights against his wishes after doctors failed to realise she posed a physical threat to the children, partly because she did not live with them.
Vivian Garmor,
17 July 2008: A moving response to our family justice campaign
The Times call for an end to secrecy has produced a huge reaction - except from the man who could change it
Camilla Cavendish
I am awed by the response to the family justice campaign that The Times launched last week. So many readers have e-mailed their MPs that I am getting calls from all three main parties. Several MPs have also raised their private concerns about how their own local authorities behave. It is uplifting to see democracy in action.
There are chinks of light already. Thoughtful people on all sides of the argument seem to accept that some degree of change is needed. Sir Mark Potter, President of the Family Division, gave broad but qualified support to many of our proposed reforms, although he argues strongly that the courts are private, not secret, and that families want them that way. Bridget Prentice, the Justice Minister, has announced that the Government will finally publish new proposals this autumn. Many social workers restrained the urge to hurl rotten eggs and supported our call for openness, while saying that the system is not as Kafkaesque as I fear.
Bill McKittrick, a social worker for 35 years and director of Bristol Social Services for ten, wrote to say that openness is a moral imperative in care proceedings where, he tells me, “lawyers get rich, social workers check and check, but children and parents get lost”. He says that “groupthink” can easily take hold. “The more people involved in a decision, the more dangerous the decisions are.” But he still thinks that mature professionals would get a better press if they gave their side of the story, being honest about the uncertainties involved in decisions, rather than trotting out the mantra of “never apologise, never explain”.
17 July 2008: Equality ends in the courts
Letter of support published in the Evening Chronicle
AS A GEORDIE exile I watch North East news when staying with friends.
I recently saw a desperate father, having scaled the Tyne Bridge, incurring a police record, fine and eventual imprisonment.
Yet Lord Framwellgate’s only concern was he should be made to pay for police time! On that subject, what about the lifeboats called out eight times when a man attempted to circumnavigate the British Isles or climbers wearing trainers and without waterproofs getting into difficulty etc.?
Now let us get to the heart of the matter. Why does this father have to do such a thing to highlight the fact that his children can no longer see him, as in my case and as for thousands of other dads? I thought socialism meant equality, Lord Framwellgate. It is a national scandal!
Why in the Equality Act of 2006 are there two clauses inserted to allow fathers to be totally discriminated against in the family courts, and enabling mothers to say whatever they want, and be believed?
Since Christmas 2001, I have stood in two elections for Fathers 4 Justice, and followed the system through the courts on 30 occasions.
Last month a further five years without contact was decided upon, until our son is 16!
Psychologists and legal representatives through the Legal Aid system have cost the taxpayer almost a quarter of a million pounds.
As a politician, David Blunkett was allowed access of one weekend a month. I’d like one minute a month.
For God’s sake help us!
DAVID HASWELL, Stone, Staffs.
AS A GEORDIE exile I watch North East news when staying with friends.
I recently saw a desperate father, having scaled the Tyne Bridge, incurring a police record, fine and eventual imprisonment.
Yet Lord Framwellgate’s only concern was he should be made to pay for police time! On that subject, what about the lifeboats called out eight times when a man attempted to circumnavigate the British Isles or climbers wearing trainers and without waterproofs getting into difficulty etc.?
Now let us get to the heart of the matter. Why does this father have to do such a thing to highlight the fact that his children can no longer see him, as in my case and as for thousands of other dads? I thought socialism meant equality, Lord Framwellgate. It is a national scandal!
Why in the Equality Act of 2006 are there two clauses inserted to allow fathers to be totally discriminated against in the family courts, and enabling mothers to say whatever they want, and be believed?
Since Christmas 2001, I have stood in two elections for Fathers 4 Justice, and followed the system through the courts on 30 occasions.
Last month a further five years without contact was decided upon, until our son is 16!
Psychologists and legal representatives through the Legal Aid system have cost the taxpayer almost a quarter of a million pounds.
As a politician, David Blunkett was allowed access of one weekend a month. I’d like one minute a month.
For God’s sake help us!
DAVID HASWELL, Stone, Staffs.
10 July 2008: Family justice: what we can do to protect our children
Times Online
A ten-point plan to make our courts system fairer
Camilla Cavendish
Over the past three days The Times has set out some of the ways in which it fears the child protection system is being subverted by forces that are largely unaccountable. We believe that the Children Act has unintentionally handed enormous power to local authorities and experts, which some are using arbitrarily. And that secrecy keeps injustices from public view.
Opening up the system sounds easier than it is. Yet there are concerns that it could lead to paediatricians and other experts being vilified and refusing to do child protection work, social workers becoming demoralised and the exposure of families' private troubles. That journalists would not keep confidences. That reports by local papers might inadvertently add to the suffering of children by revealing their identities to people living near by.
These are valid concerns. I know two couples who have adopted children in very difficult circumstances. The natural parents of those children are quite unable to care for them, but they are also vengeful. Those couples and those children should not have to live in fear of being tracked down. They have made me think very carefully about the nuances of this. But I feel that these considerations can no longer outweigh the risk of grave injustices being perpetrated against children. And that we can put safeguards in place that will work.
A ten-point plan to make our courts system fairer
Camilla Cavendish
Over the past three days The Times has set out some of the ways in which it fears the child protection system is being subverted by forces that are largely unaccountable. We believe that the Children Act has unintentionally handed enormous power to local authorities and experts, which some are using arbitrarily. And that secrecy keeps injustices from public view.Opening up the system sounds easier than it is. Yet there are concerns that it could lead to paediatricians and other experts being vilified and refusing to do child protection work, social workers becoming demoralised and the exposure of families' private troubles. That journalists would not keep confidences. That reports by local papers might inadvertently add to the suffering of children by revealing their identities to people living near by.
These are valid concerns. I know two couples who have adopted children in very difficult circumstances. The natural parents of those children are quite unable to care for them, but they are also vengeful. Those couples and those children should not have to live in fear of being tracked down. They have made me think very carefully about the nuances of this. But I feel that these considerations can no longer outweigh the risk of grave injustices being perpetrated against children. And that we can put safeguards in place that will work.
09 July 2008: Fathers in new Harman protest
Bristol Post
A father from Clevedon is one of a pair of activists who are protesting on top of a Government minister's house.
Nigel Ace, a 39-year-old sales manager from Clevedon, is demonstrating as part of the Fathers group which campaigns to stop discrimination against men.
Mr Ace is one of a pair of protestors demanding a new family court system and equality for fathers after family breakdown.
They have been on the roof of the London home of Harriet Harman since 6am and say they have food and water supplies for at least three days.
The pair are dressed as superheroes, with one in a Batman costume and the other dressed as Spiderman.
Ms Harman is the deputy leader of the Labour Party and currently the minister for women and equality.
A father from Clevedon is one of a pair of activists who are protesting on top of a Government minister's house.Nigel Ace, a 39-year-old sales manager from Clevedon, is demonstrating as part of the Fathers group which campaigns to stop discrimination against men.
Mr Ace is one of a pair of protestors demanding a new family court system and equality for fathers after family breakdown.
They have been on the roof of the London home of Harriet Harman since 6am and say they have food and water supplies for at least three days.
The pair are dressed as superheroes, with one in a Batman costume and the other dressed as Spiderman.
Ms Harman is the deputy leader of the Labour Party and currently the minister for women and equality.
09 July 2008: Family justice: your word against theirs
Times Online
In the third of our special articles, we look at the pernicious types of allegation that are almost impossible for parents to disprove
Camilla Cavendish
I wrote on Monday about the many desperate parents who have app-roached me after losing their children to social services. One thing that they all have in common is shock at how quickly the system seems to decide against them, and at how doggedly it sticks to that view despite all evidence to the contrary. Some parents find that minor issues are magnified until the conclusions reached are out of all proportion. The opposite also seems to hold true: some children come to terrible harm because the system systematically underestimates the risk to them.
In the third of our special articles, we look at the pernicious types of allegation that are almost impossible for parents to disprove
Camilla Cavendish
I wrote on Monday about the many desperate parents who have app-roached me after losing their children to social services. One thing that they all have in common is shock at how quickly the system seems to decide against them, and at how doggedly it sticks to that view despite all evidence to the contrary. Some parents find that minor issues are magnified until the conclusions reached are out of all proportion. The opposite also seems to hold true: some children come to terrible harm because the system systematically underestimates the risk to them.
