In OZ ~ Dads hit out over shared parenting law review choice

Annabelle's choice of language and attack is interesting but not surprising from what I have seen elsewhere. She focuses on the mythology of dad being abusive yet stats clearly show moms are equally so in mutual IPV and in addition in the USA and OZ the biggest abusers and killers of children. The shrieking, however works, as can be seen by the usually hysterical headlines in the media. This one is apt showing dads "hit". That's really a good choice but shows the overall bias.

If you notice the Annabelle's of the world almost always get to economic issues rather than what's best for the children. She brings up the canard of child support but the opposite is true. Moms won't get it but they consider it an entitlement. That's one of the reasons why they were the applicant for divorce. What she fails to disclose is dad will still be supporting his children directly. Is mom unable to support herself or her children or get a job or get re-trained. Why in this day and age is that the case? These are fundamental questions. The issue should be having both fit parents in the lives of their children. If one is unfit then deal with it but don't create greater distress for children because a minority of recalcitrant parents are having a tantrum.MJM

Article from:

Matthew Fynes-Clinton

July 28, 2009 12:00am

FATHERS' groups have blasted the Rudd Government's appointment of a retired Family Court judge to examine shared parenting laws he has openly criticised.

There are concerns that Richard Chisholm has already made up his mind to recommend ditching the controversial legislation.

"I believe the Government wants to change the law to satisfy the radical feminists and (other) extreme groups that might want to roll back shared parenting," said Shared Parenting Council federal director Edward Dabrowski.

"And Richard Chisholm has already indicated his reticence for shared parenting. That's why he's been brought in.

"The Government has a preordained agenda. (Chisholm's) is an inappropriate appointment. He will give them the result they want."

In a dire warning, Mr Dabrowski said that if the laws were repealed, suicide rates among divorced dads "will increase, without a doubt."

Professor Chisholm emphasised yesterday that he had been asked to review how the Family Court deals with allegations of violence.

However, the University of Sydney honorary professor in law acknowledged that this issue and the shared parenting laws were linked.

The review, announced last week by Attorney-General Robert McClelland, follows an outcry mostly from women that the prescription of shared parenting has resulted in the Family Court ordering children to spend time with violent parents.

In October 2007, Prof Chisholm and Melbourne child psychologist Jennifer McIntosh co-authored an article cautioning against shared parenting of children for high-conflict separated couples.

The paper, published in Australian Family Lawyer, referred to a study by Dr McIntosh involving a Family Court sample of 77 parents and 111 children, where almost half the children left court in a substantially shared-care arrangement (five nights or more a fortnight with each parent).

Four months later, 73 per cent of the shared-care parents reported "almost never" co-operating with each other.

And 39 per cent of the shared-care parents said they were "never" able to protect their children from their conflict.

The Howard Government introduced the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act in 2006 to rectify perceived unfairness in custody orders and assuage concerns about the impact of absent fathers.

The changes direct trial judges and magistrates in the federal family law courts to "presume" that "equal shared parental responsibility" is in the best interests of children.

This means separating parents are legally bound to attempt to make major decisions on their children's welfare jointly.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25842745-953,00.html

In OZ ~ Dads On The Air: Amfortas and podcasts..

Thanks to Christian J. It is good to see opposition to the victim feminist shrieking over shared parenting.

What Men are saying about Women

Christian J.

It is always nice to get some exposure and it's particularly gratifying to see the excellent effort and work by my friend and colleague Amfortas..

Here is a small update and hopefully when they log the podcast I will be displaying it here..
The podcast referred to are available on this on the right hand side.._________>

Dads On The Air

Tuesday 28 July 2009 10.30am-12.00 2GLF FM 89.3 and ONLINE

The Mandarins and the Masses

With Special Guest Amfortas.

Over the past week father's activists around Australia have been appalled by announcements from the Australian Labor government that it intends winding back the 2006 reforms to family law which promoted more cooperative arrangements after divorce or separation.

The government is conducting three separate inquiries into family law, inappropriately linking the inquiries with domestic violence. Not one of them consults the views of fathers or even the general public. There could be no clearer case of the mandarins regarding the great unwashed with contempt and not trusting their opinions, because after all there is strong public support for shared parenting.

Arrogantly, the government is not even pretending to consult dads. One report is by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, often referred to as The Australian Institute of Feminist Studies because of its repeated failure to take men's issues seriously.

The next is by the Law Council of Australia, who's feminist stances are also well known. And finally retired Family Court judge Richard Chisholm is conducting another review. His open hostility to shared parenting is well known and he is perceived by many as displaying the worst characteristics of the old style of Family Court, which almost invariably treated fathers with contempt. It was Chisholm who several years ago showed his true stripes by ridiculing separated fathers in a ditty he performed at a family law conference. Thanks to his blatant biases, many see his appointment as entirely inappropriate.

A better choice would have been Michael Green QC, author of the book Shared Parenting. That this government is prepared to overthrow the popular reforms to our despised family law system and return the country to the dark ages when the majority of fathers entering the court rarely if ever saw their children again defies belief.

The government's kow towing to the wild exaggerations of the taxpayer funded domestic violence industry and the peddling of hysterical hatred against men has sickened many.

Against this background, this week we play samples from the compelling podcasts compiled by a private practicing psychologist with 25 years experience who is driven by his own experiences and the experiences of many of his clients.

He goes by the handle Amfortas, after the keeper of the Holy Grail.

"I am a men's rights activist who is fighting against the excesses of feminism and the deleterious affects they are having on our public policies, particularly as they affect families and children," he says. "I am not at all embarrassed by the use of the term men's rights, even if its unfashionable. Men's rights are part of human rights."

The podcasts can be found at http://soundcloud.com

In the Stolen Generation podcast he declares: "There is no suggestion that obstructing the child's relationship with the noncustodial parent or undermining his or her parental authority is to be considered abuse or neglect. The sole custody model is first stage parental alienation. Parental alienation is child abuse. It follows that the sole custody model is child abuse."

The podcasts provide a professional analysis of the Family Court’s ‘Bible’ - In The Best Interests of Children: The Least Detrimental Alternative - that justifies the ‘ least detrimental alternatives’ to the traditional family. "We have a generation of fathers who are shell-shocked, heartbroken," he says.

"It was Adolph Hitler who first said that people will take any reduction to their freedom if you tell them it is in the best interests of the children. Could we not have a non-detrimental alternative?"

He argues The Family Court's culture and style of orders bring about the detrimental conditions that lead to a delinquent culture of fatherlessness in children. "The ‘most deserving parent’ is chosen on genitalia," he says. "Professionals make judgements that cause parental alienation syndrome. A juggernaut is driven over Magna Carta. An equal society is replaced by a superior class of people."

We close the show listening to his podcast Give a Dog a Bad Name, in which he argues the mass media is anti-male by commercial design.

"Comprehensive study data shows the depth of disrespect for men," he says.

"Even ‘Old-school’ feminists are appalled at the damage being done to men. The media is wrong, both factually and morally. Government pays for an agitprop war on men’s reputation to frighten women. At what cost?"

Next week: DOTA's Canadian Special, with Member of Parliament Roger Galloway, family lawyer Karen Selick and retired professor of Men's Studies, Jeffrey Asher.

If you haven't visited us for a while, please check out the wonderful redesign of our website thanks to the superb efforts of our researcher Greg Andresen. It is now less cluttered, more functional and much more stylish.

Police allege East Kingston woman framed ex-husband

Here's a good one folks. Poor thing is all sweet and innocent but then they all think that way. Its call beiing delusional. MJM

Charges claim Ruggiero sent threatening messages to herself

Photo 1 of 1 | Zoom Photo +

Kristin Ruggiero Photo courtesy of Coast Guard

By Beth LaMontagne Hall

newsletter@seacoastonline.com

July 17, 2009 6:00 AM

Kristin Ruggiero of East Kingston went to the media last year seeking help with an ongoing domestic violence case against her ex-husband.

Ruggiero told a television reporter she was so terrified of her ex-husband she couldn't sleep at night.

In an interview with the Exeter News-Letter, Ruggiero said he was posing as other people over the phone in an attempt to find out where she lived.

Now police allege that before she began her media campaign Ruggiero, 33, attempted to set up her ex-husband by sending a series of threatening text messages to herself from a cell phone she had falsely registered under his name.

According to a police affidavit, Ruggiero filed a complaint with East Kingston police claiming her ex-husband, Jeffrey Ruggiero, 39, sent her 12 text messages in May 2008, in violation of a protective order. Some of the messages were pleas to get back together, she claimed. Others were expletive-laced insults.

East Kingston Police Chief Richard Simpson prepared an arrest warrant, but Jeffrey Ruggiero asked the chief to take another look at the evidence, records show. Simpson decided to dig deeper and obtained records from the phone used to send the threatening messages.

According to the affidavit, police tracked where and when the phone was used. They discovered a call made in California was six-tenths of a mile from where Kristin Ruggiero was staying at the time.

Another call, placed from Nashville, Tenn., lined up with the date and time Kristin Ruggiero had flown into the city, the affidavit states.

Based on this evidence, Ruggiero was indicted last month on 12 felony counts of falsifying evidence and one misdemeanor count of filing a false report.

She is scheduled to appear in Rockingham County Superior Court next month.

Simpson and Assistant County Attorney Jerome Blanchard, who is handling the case, both refused to comment until after the trial.

In a phone interview on Tuesday, Kristin Ruggiero denied the charges against her, dismissed the evidence presented by police as blatantly false and said she is looking forward to her day in court.

"I would like to go to trial tomorrow," she said. "I just want to prove myself. I want this to end. I want to move forward."

This indictment is the latest in an ongoing legal battle between the couple.

Jeffrey Ruggiero, who is stationed with the United States Coast Guard in Charleston, S.C., was convicted in Exeter District Court on April 30, 2008, on charges of criminal threatening, distributing obscene material and violating a protective order. According to Exeter prosecutor Heather Newell, Jeffrey Ruggiero appealed and these three charges were dropped in a negotiated deal.

Seeing her husband held accountable for these charges became somewhat of a crusade for Ruggiero last summer and her story appeared in various news outlets and blogs. She also appealed to a litany of public officials, including the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office and the Coast Guard, who she accused of protecting her husband.

In light of her past efforts to speak out against domestic violence, Kristin Ruggiero said these new charges have been difficult.

"It feels horrible," Ruggiero said. "I'm being accused of something I've worked so hard to get away from."

http://m.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090717/NEWS/907170330/-1/WAP06&template=wapart&m_section=

Indulging craziness

This opinion piece hits on target discussing the era of various paranoia's evident in society, including most Western democracies with some exceptions. I love that phrase "Compassion Fascism" especially when you think of victim feminism and the lazy law makers who continue to placate the whiners with more entitlements.MJM

James Lewis | July 26, 2009

I'll bet this has happened to you. Some friend or relative is a little bit nuts -- maybe they just are, or maybe they have been burned by painful experiences. So they get very anxious about imaginary threats and outraged by imagined injustices. Maybe they're paranoid because they're smoking dope, or they drive drunk because they're young and stupid and think it's cool. Or maybe they're just jealous of people who look happier, or prettier, or have better toys. It's just ordinary human folly.

And to keep the peace, we indulge their craziness.

That's our biggest mistake. That's why we are in such trouble as a people and a culture.

We have been taught to indulge craziness. It's supposed to show that we're "compassionate". Psychiatrists know this: If you let crazy folks set the rules, you have to get crazy right along with them. It doesn't matter if your client is crazy for good reasons. The cause doesn't matter one little bit. Good therapists are taught never to indulge craziness, because that just makes everything worse. Alcoholics Anonymous has long understood exactly the same thing. Real compassion doesn't mean joining people in the pits. That just means that you get two crazy people instead of just one. And then you get more and more, as the phony compassion spreads.

Our culture is now actively teaching racial paranoia to blacks, gender paranoia to women, and abuse paranoia to everybody with a beef. All those exaggerated fears and phony fits of rage have been cynically whipped up by the Left to grab more power. That's their Compassion Fascism. The rest of us go along, because we don't want to be bothered to stand up against it. But in the aggregate, over time, we have become a culture driven loopy by race, gender, and group paranoia. We have adopted the madness of the most race-obsessed people, and made them rich. Over time, they have worn down our sanity, so that our culture has literally gotten crazy.

Obama's first crazy-making person was probably his father substitute in Hawaii. By all accounts Frank Marshall was a race-obsessed black guy. It's not that he was wrong to feel angry, at the time. There were a ton of injustices against blacks. It's rather that he turned his pain into fanatical campaign of hatred, spreading it around to everybody else. That was Obama's first father figure in Hawaii.

Enter Henry Louis Gates, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Attorney General Eric Holder and Barack Obama: All of them built fame and wealth on paranoid race politics. Enter Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Barbara Boxer (I'm no lady, I'm a Senator!), and an endless Conga Line of victim feminists. Look what those folks have done to Sarah Palin -- a high-tech lynch mob, driven mad with envy of Palin's good looks, popularity and joie de vivre. In the universities raging feminists, blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and Queer Studies nabobs -- among others -- have exploited the career specialty of victimology. It's a standard way to get tenure and promotion -- by slander, rumor-mongering and intimidation. We've seen the faculty lynch mob at Duke U going after white lacrosse players. At Harvard, it's how the Left fired Larry Summers for daring to tell the truth.

Summers used to be a respectable economist, more or less, but now he is toeing the mendacious Obama line on the economy. Is it possible he was just burned at Harvard? Maybe Larry learned fear of the lynch mob at Harvard U, and Obama now has him under his thumb.

You see fear in the eyes of white guys around Obama. Brian Williams has his eyes cast down. Tim Geithner has this little head bow, looking at Obama with fear in his eyes while keeping his head bowed down. They look for all the world like Step ‘n Fetchit. That's all very amusing for purposes of racial revenge, but it means Obama is surrounded with lying commissars who fear to tell him the truth. Michelle is even scarier than hubby, and must be a terror in the White House. It was Michelle who got IG Walpin fired from her private playpen, Americorps. It's Michelle who is the child of the Chicago Machine, after all.

So this White House really does have Czars - Obama being Numero Uno -- and a Czarina -- Michelle, who supports the atmosphere of intimidation. If Obama seems badly out of touch with reality, the answer should be obvious: By spreading fear he guarantees that his commissars will lie to him. That's how the Roman Caesars drifted more and more out of touch as they gained more and more power. It's how Europe's monarchs managed to live in isolated splendor, totally in a glass bubble. It's how the Chinese and Japanese courts began to live out a Noh play.

Humans have a hard time facing reality. Power-hungry people drift into their own fantasy world by cutting off the truth-tellers. This is the most fantasy-driven administration in US history. That will be their downfall, as we are already beginning to see right in front of our eyes.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/indulging_craziness.html

Botched judge threat probe downs Fathers 4 Justice website

This is interesting and hopefully doesn't display the capabilities of these people to find real terrorists through the deciphering of email headers. Tracing an email to its home server is not a complicated task.MJM

Taxpayers stung for unjust email injunction

By Chris Williams

Posted in Law, 27th July 2009 11:41 GMT

Exclusive The government faces accusations of technical incompetence and waste after it went to the High Court to shut down the Fathers 4 Justice website, wrongly claiming campaigners had threatened to publish the home addresses of 237 judges.

Lawyers for Matt O'Connor, the controversial group's founder, are now preparing action against the Ministry of Justice to recover costs and damages from taxpayers. He alleges civil servants failed to perform basic checks on the origins of the threat before launching a legal attack.

The battle began in late June, when the Ministry of Justice received an email falsely purporting to come from O'Connor. It said Fathers 4 Justice would expose judges on its website as revenge for perceived unfairness in family court decisions.

Officials responsible for the security of HM Courts Service commissioned lawyers in the Treasury Solicitor's Department, which provides legal services across government, to get an emergency injuction against O'Connor, ordering him to shut down the Fathers 4 Justice website.

It was granted by the High Court on July 16. Failure to comply would have landed him in jail for contempt of court, so O'Connor duly took the website offline.

His lawyers immediately began an appeal against the injunction and fought for the Ministry of Justice to disclose the email at the centre of the case. Once they did, O'Connor said, it was obvious the threat did not come from him or the genuine Fathers 4 Justice website.

Last Wednesday 22 July, the government withdrew the injunction.

"I'm not a techie but any fool could have looked at the Message-ID and seen it was a fake - a 10-year-old could have done it," O'Connor told The Register, adding that no attempt was made to verify the email by contacting him directly.

"Someone there is either extremely gullible or vindictive."

In a statement, HM Courts Service said it was continuing to probe the threatening email.

"The injunction sought to prevent the publication of sensitive information. Following representations from the parties on the origins of the email, we have discontinued our injunction and are continuing our investigations elsewhere," it said.

O'Connor is now preparing defamation proceedings against the government because materials disclosed by the Ministry of Justice showed officials shared details about the fake email with other departments, and with the 237 judges threatened.

"All those judges think I made personal threats against them," he said.

Perceived threats to the security of the judiciary are taken very seriously. Earlier this year a Sheffield man was arrested because of his peripheral involvement in administering the activist website Indymedia.

Police demanded to know the identity of a user who posted the home address of a judge who had just handed down jail sentences in a landmark animal rights extremism trial. The man remains on police bail (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/10/indymedia/). ®

Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/27/f4j_moj/

Opposition sites to Bill C-422

Just for fun I'm going to keep a list of sites I discover that oppose Bill #C-422 and then also just for fun try and see what the political leaning is. I'm Apolitical not having any particular leaning with the exception of away from the NDP, typical socialists who operate in a vacuous wasteland of whining about whatever appears to get sound bites on any particular day. They are the "No Dads Party" but perhaps they will see the equalism in keeping children in the lives of both fit parents, or ideology may block it as is the case of the socialists in the UK. The public opinion poll shows NDP voters favour equal parenting.

As a student of Politics, a non religious person (agnostic for those of you who like labels) and a student of human nature it allows for my intellectual (what there is of it) curiosity to see where ideology crosses over from fairness, common sense and in the case of the new brand of feminism, an explanation (or not) of how it strayed from equality for all to the "I'm an oppressed victim of the patriarchy", (we men). I also like to compare these North American Victim Feminists (there are men that fit this definition as well as you will see) to real oppression such as we have seen with the drowning of the 4 women at the hands of real and deadly patriarchs lurking inside a religion.

These are the ones so far and please note how they link to one another or use quotes from other articles that fit their political or ideological viewpoint.

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/maurice-vellacotts-private-bill-c-422-bad-news-mothers-and-children This article is on a very left wing site and the author martin dufresne is a long standing feminist, albeit of the male variety. I have always wanted to find out why men like Dufresne get so ideologically wrapped around a female centric, currently a victim oriented version of feminism. He operates a Montreal based translation service here. Are men like him self-loathing in that they condemn - not just one man - but all men as unfit to be a parent? I think it says a lot about him but not much about the rest of us.

Martin Dufresne is a profeminist activist based in Quebec. Long involved with Montreal Men Against Sexism, he monitors Male Lobby activity, notably the so-called "fathers' rights" movement and "alternatives to justice" for wife batterers and child rapists. He is a co-founder of FIVERS (Feminists against Intimate Violence Empowerment, Resistance and Support), an international Internet discussion list dedicated to ending sexist violence. (To join, e-mail: fivers@yahoogroups.com).

Here is a little bit of his propaganda which has no citations as usual:

The organization Quebec Men Against Sexism (Secretary: Martin Dufresne: martin@laurentides.net) sent out this press release to commemorate the Montreal Massacre, which it calls a "terrorist attack." Here's a bit of it:

(Quebec City, November 24, 2004)--A detailed database assembled by Quebec Men Against Sexism indicates that no fewer than 594 women and 172 children and youths have been murdered by men (or by unknown parties) in Quebec since the antifeminist rampage of December 1989 at Ecole Polytechnique. And these are only the cases where bodies have been found and identified and victim names made public, an acknowledgement often denied to children and to...

This site http://canadawomen.blogspot.com/2009/07/bill-c-422-equal-shared-parenting.html is a Victim Feminist location operated by an unidentified person. Anonymity has its perks I guess.

This site is operated by a Grandmother named Emily Dee from Kingston, ON who switched from being a red-Tory to a liberal. (No apparent difference that I can discern but I am not suggesting it is a bad thing). What she may not understand is Count Iggy her new political guru supports equal shared parenting in one of his books. She may have to go to the No Dads Party which is a tad further left again. She quotes Dufresne's article and is entitlement oriented and concerned about the religious right. I hadn't heard of the Promise Keepers for a very long time until reading this.

This is an interesting blog hit with the referral emanating from a private que on rabble.ca the leftist ideologue site. It is a taxpayer supported institution that is now called E-health - yes the one with all the scandals. Is it also a hot bed of feminism? We'll see. I'm recording the info for now just in case we taxpayers are being abused again with employees using government computers and time for personal use. I also see one from Ryerson University so the feminist network may be geraring up for greater opposition.

VISITOR ANALYSIS
Referrer	http://rabble.ca/privatemsg/view/2084
Host Name
IP Address	142.47.24.212 [Label IP Address]
Country	Canada
Region	Ontario
City	Toronto
ISP	Smart Systems For Health Agency
Returning Visits	0
Visit Length	4 mins 18 secs
VISITOR SYSTEM SPECS
Browser	IE 7.0
Operating System	WinXP
Resolution	Unknown
Javascript	Enabled

Navigation Path

Date	Time	Type	WebPage
13th August 2009	09:32:08	Page View	rabble.ca/privatemsg/view/2084 f4j-soo.blogspot.com/2009/07/opposition-commences-for-bill-c-422.html
13th August 2009	09:36:26	Page View	rabble.ca/privatemsg/view/2084 f4j-soo.blogspot.com/2009/07/opposition-commences-for-bill-c-422.html