In Ireland its the same as here ~ The feminist sirens remained quiet. For the victim is a man

Independent.ie

By KEVIN MYERS
Tuesday May 05 2009

There seems to be no empathy, no regard, no compassion for male victims.

And the case of Michael Hannon is particularly shocking

I looked, and of course, I looked in vain, for some sign of compassion for Michael Feichin Hannon, from our state-supported feminist quangos. I shouldn't have been surprised about their silence over the grave injustice done to him: yet some small stupid part of me had retained the naïve hope that there might be some sign of ordinary human decency from our professional gender-industry.

Gender self-pity is now so deeply ingrained in the political psyche of the institutions of this State that it is apparently quite invisible to those who run them. We have lived in a political regime with a one-way rage for two decades now; and like the vegetation on a wind-blasted island, the landscape of our public morality has been utterly distorted by it. We have created a state-subsidised chorus of feminist sirens which only howls when it sees the cases that confirm that women alone are the victims of endless oppression. Naturally, the sirens -- and their colleagues in the media -- resolutely ignore those cases which provide contradictory evidence.

Now, a few weeks ago I was confident that the various state-subsidised feminist quangos -- from the Rape Crisis Centres, to the National Council of Women, to the Equality Authority -- would say nothing about the preposterously light sentence of seven years for the serial rape of a 14-year-old boy by his mother, and I was right. The fact that the judge was a woman was no doubt a factor in their silence. Her explanation for the light sentence -- that the Edwardian law was more heavily biased against paternal incest was both tendentious and spurious: for the charge of sexual assault alone carries a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment.

It's possible that I missed some condemnation of the sentence by the vast army of feminist-commentators and feminist quangos: but if I did, it wasn't for want of trying. But imagine the outcry -- and very properly -- if a man who had raped and sexually abused his 14-year-old daughter was sentenced to just seven years' imprisonment by a male judge.

What troubles me most about these feminist institutions, and the feminists who run them -- not all of them women by any means -- is the double standards which are now a norm. There seems to be no empathy, no regard, no compassion for male victims. So the case of Michael Hannon is particularly shocking, not merely because it could so easily happen again, but because of the lack of outcry resulting from it. Twelve years ago this innocent young man was framed by a malicious 10-year-old girl, Una Hardester, and duly found guilty of assault and sexual assault. His life could have been ruined. That it wasn't was because his family believed in his innocence.

That same year, three young Irish soldiers on holiday in Cyprus were similarly accused by an Irish girl. Only 15 hours later, after the men had been arrested on charges of rape, and under questioning from a detective who doubted her allegations, did the accuser break down and admit that her claims were baseless. She was sentenced to four months imprisonment.

Cue, outcry from Irish feminists, not over the attempt by a young Irishwoman to use the proper loathing for the crime of rape to ruin the lives of three innocent men, but because she was imprisoned at all. Condemning the jail sentence, Olive Braiden of the Rape Crisis Centre, said it would deter rape victims from reporting cases, and anyway, there was more to this case "than met the eye": whatever that cheap slur might mean. Anne O'Donnell, formerly of the Rape Crisis Centre, similarly dismissed the seriousness of the false allegations of rape, and, briefly appointing herself as both judge and jury in some hypothetical Cypriot court, declared that the woman's word alone would never have been enough to have secured a rape conviction. Ah. So that's all right then.

Fast forward to the Hannon case. Racked with guilt, Una Hardester returned from the US nearly three years ago to admit to her false allegations. Her sworn statement was known to An Garda Siochana and the office of the Director Public Prosecutions. But, quite scandalously, it was never passed to Michael Hannon's solicitor. Michael only discovered its existence purely by chance, after his sister encountered Hardester at a petrol station. Thus, no petrol, no justice. And it gets worse. For this state then flatly refused to declare that a miscarriage had been done. Michael Hannon, having once been the victim of the law, was then obliged to return to the courts to fight for a certificate of miscarriage of justice, which the Court of Appeal issued last week.

Now, we can be quite certain if a woman had been so gravely wronged by the State in some matter relating to sexual crime, that the feminist sirens, media and quangos alike, would have been howling in anger, and demanding enquiries and heads. But in the aftermath of this case, nothing: the sirens remained as quiet as a mountain lake. For the victim is a man, so really, the injustice done to him really doesn't count. Not in 1997, not today, and no doubt, not in 2019 either.

kmyers@independent.ie

- KEVIN MYERS

..because lying in the Family Court is CHILD ABUSE, says Fathers4Equality

By Ash Patil | May 7, 2009

Fathers4Equality respond to recent comments by the Chief Justice of the Australian Family Court Sydney, May 7, 2009:

A case of poor judgment

The Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, has recently launched an extraordinary attack on Australia's internationally regarded 2006 Family Law amendments, by writing to the Attorney-General and asking him to urgently repeal important provisions within the amendments.

These provisions in the family law act were specifically implemented to reduce the epidemic of false allegations and parental alienation that permeate every corridor of the Family Law Courts, to the clear detriment of the innocent children caught in the cross-fire. But Bryant wants them removed, and fails to explain how the innocent victims of maliciously false allegations would be protected without them.

What is more astonishing it seems is that unlike the parliamentary committee that recommended these laws in the first place, the Chief Justice has not consulted widely before making such an extraordinary intervention (in fact she has not consulted with any fathers' groups at all). Rightly or wrongly, Bryant will now be perceived to have compromised views on this issue, denying her the opportunity to have played a unifying force in the process of family law reform in this country, much like the wasted opportunities of her predecessor.

The two provisions Bryant wants specifically removed include:

• the order of costs, at the Judge's discretion, against a parent who has been proven to have "knowingly" made false allegation in Court, and
• unspecified actions, at the Judges's discretion, against a parent who has purposely alienated or deliberately maligned the children against the other parent

The importance of these provisions

These provisions have been specifically implemented to reduce the disturbingly common practices by some separated parents in making contrived and sinister allegations in Court against the other parent, and to otherwise engage in concerted efforts to destroy the relationship between the child and the other parent. This is done knowing full well the children will be irrevocably harmed in the process, both psychologically and emotionally. Yet it goes on and will continue to go on given human nature, unless we have laws to help it stop.

So these are "good", modest provisions designed to stop misguided parents from misusing the system and abusing innocent children.

Introduced only after extensive community consultation

These provisions were agreed to by a bi-partisan parliamentary committee (both Labor and Libs/Nats) that went around Australia canvassing the views of all Australians for over two years. Finally this committee was so appalled at the extent of institutional abuse in the Family Court that it recommended measures to protect innocent children and parents who were victims of contrived allegations and parental alienation by spiteful ex-partners.

But Bryant wants to override the will of the Australian people and the will of Parliament, and to completely remove all disincentives against lying in the Family Court

Really soft penalty for a very serious crime

Proving that someone has "knowingly" made false allegations rather than "mistakenly" or "recklessly" is quite a tall order. The standard of proof in these matters is a very tough hurdle to pass, and as a result "knowingly false" allegations have only been proven in a relatively few cases in recent years. If they are proved, they may result in a costs order, although this has been rarely applied in children's matters by the judiciary.

Now given that perjury in any other Australian court may result in 10 years or more jail time, one must be mindful of the fact that this is a really soft penalty for a very serious crime. It is a provision however that can work as a disincentive, albeit a modest one, in dissuading many parents from lying in the Family Court in the first place.

So these are "good", modest provisions designed as a disincentive to those misguided parents who may in a moment of weakness be tempted to make contrived allegations in Court.

Measured responses to issues of concern

Bryant justifies the need for these changes by suggesting that some people have misunderstood these provisions. Even if this is true, her suggested fix is a remarkable over-reaction to an issue that could be addressed through a number of simple measures.

• Given that most parents in family law proceedings are either represented by lawyers, have visited a family relationship centre or have sought government funded legal services, a simple review could identify the cause of this misinformation from within these service providers, and provide an opportunity for corrective measures to be implemented.

• Secondly, a request to the Attorney General to implement an educational campaign to educate parents about these provisions would go a long way in addressing any existing misconceptions, and would be a more measured and effective approach to the issue at hand.

Given the unprecedented nature of these family law amendments, what is required are sensible, well-measured & ultimately timely approaches to these issues, in order to allow for proper outcomes based research to develop. Anything less than this would put at risk the very wellbeing of those we are trying to protect.

Broader consultations as a first step

1. Fathers4Equality would like to encourage the Chief Justice to put some thought into what checks and measures she would alternatively suggest be implemented, if the current provisions are removed, to protect children from the devastating damage resulting from alienation and perjury in Court. Given that lying in the Family Court and parental alienation are forms of child abuse, we stress the importance of carefully considering the implications to the welfare of children if these safeguards are removed.
   
   
2. Secondly and in reference to a recent campaign that has promoted a less than accurate reflection of these new laws, we would ask the Chief Justice to consider making a public statement to the effect, as is the case, that no evidence exists of any escalation of child abuse as a result of the new amendments. This would be an important statement from the Chief Justice in the interests of an informed community discussion on this matter, and would help ensure that the debate is discussed in terms of facts, not innuendo.
   
   
3. Finally, we would like to draw attention to the increasingly under-resourced and overworked child protection authorities in this country, and the fact that too many cases of genuine abuse are not thoroughly investigated, in part because of the level of false allegations emanating from the Family Court. It must be recognised that for every hour that a child protection officer is investigating a false allegation, it is one hour less protection that can be given to a child in genuine need, and this is a cost that the children of Australia simply cannot afford.

Fathers4Equality would be open to discussing these important issues further with the Chief Justice, if she is willing to accept our invitation.

written by Ash Patil & James Adams
fathers4equality - australia
http://www.fathers4equality-australia.org

Fathers4Equality Media Spokesperson: James Adams:
(email) media@fathers4equality-australia.org

Other Media Enquiries
http://www.fathers4equality-australia.org/equalparenting/f4efeedback.nsf/mediaenquiry

Fiance stubbed cigs out on me, poured boiling water in my lap and held a steam iron on my arm.. I never hit back

The Sun - UK

By STAFF REPORTERS

Published: 05 May 2009

BATTERED Ian McNicholl revealed today how he lied for his twisted fiance – who subjected him to 12 months of shocking abuse.

Burly Ian, 46, who is nearly 6ft and weighs 14stone, towered over 5ft Michelle Williamson.

But that did not save him as she launched repeated savage attacks.

Watch Ian's harrowing revelations below...

As Williamson began a seven-year jail sentence, Ian opened his heart to The Sun. His story shows that, while women remain the main victims of domestic abuse, men can suffer as well. Ian’s list of attacks include:

SCALDED with a steam iron, BOILING WATER poured over his genitals, cigarettes thrust up his NOSE and stubbed on his CHEST, and a gin bottle SMASHED in his mouth — on top of numerous PUNCHES and BEATINGS.

Today he told DJ Jon Gaunt on SunTalk of the first time Williamson launched an unprovoked attack on him.

He was left with heavy bruising when she punched him in the face after Ian spoke to female friend.

Shattered Ian said he was too scared to tell pals what was happening at home and lied when pals asked him what happened.

Today he told Sun columnist Gaunt: "I was covering up for her behaviour.

I was asked awkward questions at work and came up with the classic line that I had opened a cupboard door into my face."

---

You can listen again to Ian on today's Sun Talk show by clicking HERE.

---

Jailed ... Ian's smirking torturer Michelle Williamson at court

As he showed off scars that include burns and broken eye sockets, Ian said: "I expected to die. Her cruelty knew no bounds. I never retaliated because I knew I would have to kill her if I did — or she would just keep coming at me."

Two women a week are killed by a current or former male partner. And one in four women experiences domestic violence in their lifetime.

But Home Office figures also show two MEN die every three weeks at the hands of a partner or ex. One in five men suffers domestic violence, although this would include attacks by gay partners and relatives.

Hammer attack ... damage to Ian's shoulder from where evil Williamson actually broke a claw hammer while beating him with it

Businessman Ian’s 18-month relationship with Williamson began after they shared a taxi in Grimsby, Lincs.

For 12 of those months he would wake praying he got through the day unscathed.

The attacks began with her usual rant: "You never tell me you love me. You never instigate sex."

In one vicious assault Williamson, 34, hit Ian so hard with a claw hammer it broke on the third blow to his shoulder.

An iron was held close to his arm so the steam scalded him. He went on: “I had my teeth smashed out with a gin bottle once.

Scarred ... Ian's left arm still bears the mark from being cruelly scalded with a steam iron

“She struck me on the knee repeatedly with a magnum of champagne after the thick glass vase she was using smashed, then she lashed me with the flex of a Hoover.”

Ramming lit cigarettes up each of unsuspecting Ian’s nostrils and stubbing five out on his chest was another method of venting her anger.

Warped Williamson demanded Ian get an erection within five minutes of the attack — or she would give him “the beating he deserved”.

He was unable to comply and she pummelled him until she was too exhausted to continue. He recalled: “When she stopped I was so relieved to be free of pain it honestly didn’t occur to me to leave.

“She was proud of the injuries she inflicted and would send me to the shop to get her cigarettes straight after a beating.”

Ian would be paraded in front of Williamson’s pals to reveal the cuts and bruises she inflicted. He said “Once she leapt from her chair and yelled, ‘My abuse hasn’t worked, you still don’t love me. Let’s see if a lap full of scalding water will help.’

“I heard the kettle click as it boiled. I was frozen to the spot. Surely she wouldn’t do it.

“But she walked in and poured the whole kettle into my lap.

“I screamed in pain and desperately tried to lift my jogging bottoms from my skin.

“Unbelievably, she went and refilled the kettle and did it again.

“I hobbled upstairs and as I prised the material away from my skin, it split like an orange.

“She told me I couldn’t go to A&E and called a chemist to deliver gauze bandages. I dressed the wounds myself. It took weeks to heal.

Williamson’s last attack, in April 2008, began with a savage punch to the back of the head that woke Ian at 4am. She then kicked him in the head. Ian fell to the floor, and was smashed over the head with a TV.

Ian said: “I was in so much pain and so tired. I heard her go to another room, screaming she would kill me — and I believed her.” Too weak to move, Ian stayed quiet and still — the only defence he knew.

Raging Williamson ordered Ian downstairs and as he slumped in a chair she took an iron bar and rained blows on his head.

Desperate Ian told her he could not see but she continued, striking him from his shoulder down to his hand and then from his ribs to his feet until he was on the floor, unable to move. Satisfied at last, evil Williamson returned to bed.

It took an anonymous call from a neighbour to alert police and end the abuse. Ian sat trembling in the back of a police van and finally recounted his ordeal.

Cigarette burns ... battered male Ian McNicholl opens his shirt to show where lover stubbed ciggies on his chest

He said: "Admitting the truth was the hardest thing I’ve done. I was a shell of the man I was before, physically, emotionally and financially. The day the police came I was going to take an overdose. I could take no more."

Last month Williamson was sentenced to a total of 18 years, to run concurrently, on three counts of actual bodily harm and two of GBH.

She was cleared of attacking Ian with a mobile, a champagne bottle and electric flex.

Ian had enjoyed a successful career as a training consultant. Williamson put paid to that.

He said: “I thought she was very attractive, with a slight build, well spoken and with a great sense of humour. We moved into a flat together and got engaged.

“But she punched me one night after she flew into a rage about my ex-lovers. I told a colleague I had walked into a door. Crazy as it sounds, I still loved her. But before I knew it the beatings were a regular occurrence.

“By then I was trapped. As a victim you can’t think logically. Your only thought is to keep your abuser happy. I didn’t think anyone would believe me. I was ashamed.”

After Williamson was arrested, Ian wound up in a Salvation Army hostel until he got her evicted. He discovered she had plundered his bank accounts, taken a second mortgage on his home and run up thousands in debt on credit cards in his name.

His home was repossessed and he is now living in sheltered accommodation. Doctors have told him he needs reconstructive facial surgery.

Incredibly, while the abuse was going on Williamson insisted they went on ITV’s Jeremy Kyle show, where she wrongly accused Ian of seeing hookers. He went along with her claim, but now denies it.

Producer Andrew Hill told Grimsby Crown Court at Williamson’s trial that before the show Ian dropped his trousers and pants to reveal the scalds from boiling water.

Mr Hill added: “I was shocked at the sight of severe burns and blistering over his penis and legs.”

Looking back, Ian said: “I feel numb towards her, just curious how someone could inflict such pain.”

s.wostear@the-sun.co.uk

Geldof attacks courts over fathers' rights

The Interview

By Tony Jones

Friday, 12 September 2003

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/geldof-attacks-courts-over-fathers-rights-579682.html



Bob Geldof made an impassioned plea last night for fathers to be given equal access to their children when a marriage breaks down.



Speaking at the launch of a book examining the subject, the rock star and businessman said he had been "unfairly" treated by the judicial system when he separated from his wife, the late Paula Yates.



The couple had three daughters but Mr Geldof said that following the break-up he was told "how lucky I was to see them two hours a f****** week".



Geldof fought a bitter custody battle with Yates after she left him in 1995 for the Australian rock singer Michael Hutchence. The courts granted him full custody of Fifi Trixibelle, now 20, Peaches, 14, and Pixie, 13 in 1998, but it was something he never wanted or asked for, as the decision penalised his former wife. Yates died two years later.



The musician's comments came during an address to academics and family groups at the Nuffield Institute in central London during the launch of Children and Their Families; Contact, Rights & Welfare, a collection of academic articles to which he has contributed a chapter.

The book looks at how family relationships are sustained after divorce, adoption or when children are taken into care.



Geldof told the audience that in his article he argues that parents should get equal "50-50" access to their children, something which is practised in Denmark. He added: "That's all I wanted in my case. The judiciary finds it almost impossible to take on the notion I should be with my children 50 per cent of the time."



Speaking about the law governing a father's access to his children he added: "This law ridiculed me. Its implementor humiliated and belittled me and would not accept I was as capable of bringing up my children as a woman. I want to be recognised as the father of my children and I want to bring them up equal to their mother."

False Allegations ~ Justice for an innocent man

Another tragic tale of what false allegations will do but also the degree to which drug addiction poisons the mind. Why is there still a publication ban on these women? Have they been charged with anything yet? Will the court order any restitution? Not that they have anything to give. How can you protect yourself from this kind of permanently damaging and traumatizing saga?MJM

Toronto Sun

News Columnists / Mark Bonokoski

Justice for an innocent man

By MARK BONOKOSKI

Last Updated: 3rd May 2009, 5:25am

BELLEVILLE -- Brian Leckie, whose award-honoured crisis-counselling career goes back more than 30 unblemished years, calls it "a therapist's worst nightmare."

And he is far from wrong.

Two troubled Bancroft-area women -- one purportedly a drug-troubled victim of domestic abuse; the younger co-accuser a "friend" with issues of her own -- put their focus on Brian Leckie, get him charged with two counts of sexual assault and then, before the ink is figuratively dry on his criminal indictment, they launch a civil-action suit to take a run at his money.

Except that it was based on fiction.

In a Bancroft provincial court the other week, Judge Stephen Hunter acquitted Brian Leckie on all charges, and admonished his accusers for having "no credible" legs on which to stand -- the court's transcripts leaving no doubt. But the damage had already been done.

Both the Bancroft Times and the local Belleville Intelligencer wrote of the charges being laid, but little if anything of his charges being dismissed.

There are, after all, no press releases on acquittals.

In a radio commentary for the Haliburton Broadcasting Group, and its collective of Moose-FM stations, I threw more fuel on the flames burning Brian Leckie following the OPP's press release on his charges by writing that he was a counsellor at Bancroft's Crisis Intervention Centre at the time of the alleged assaults, and that his two alleged victims -- both women in their twenties -- were reportedly his clients.

"While we must presume the man's innocence until proven guilty," I reported, "one must nonetheless pine for the two women who, if the facts bear out, were basically re-victimized at the very place where they sought refuge from whatever crisis it was that had turned their lives upside-down."

Well, as it turns out, one should instead be pining for Brian Leckie who, at the age of 63, had his own life suddenly turned upside-down by two women whose allegations were determined in court to be bogus.

And it cost him big-time.

Brian Leckie's professional CV is almost operatic. A fulltime counsellor with Victim Services Canada, working out of the Quinte Health Care here in Belleville (with a satellite office in Bancroft), the former professor for the faculty of psychiatry at McMaster University Medical Centre is a registered traumatologist specializing in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), critical incident stress management, workplace harassment ... et cetera, et cetera.

On top of that, he has served as trauma counsellor with the RCMP, the national intelligence service, and the Hamilton-Wentworth emergency response team.

His career has been long, and seemingly selfless.

Following 9/11, for example, he took a leave of absence and went to New York as a volunteer trauma counsellor and was honoured by the New York Police Department with a Commendatory Recognition Award.

"Maybe, with all my professional experience and my hundreds of cases, a red flag should have come up when it came to these two women, but it didn't," he admits.

"Even looking back, I would not have expected this."

Brian Leckie chokes up twice, once when telling how he was called into the Bancroft OPP detachment, thinking it was to discuss a local domestic abuse investigation, and then finding himself charged with sexual assault.

The second time is recounting the costs -- the tarnishing of his good name, and the loss of virtually every dime he had to defend himself in court.

His lawyer fees, in fact, took all of the $115,000 he had socked away in RRSPs.

"No matter how bogus the charges, you need a competent lawyer to defend you," he says.

"If I did not have those RRSPs, I would likely be in jail today," he says.

"As a result, I am now bankrupt -- with an outstanding legal bill of $26,000 for those two days in court, including $6,000 for an expert witness.

"I was suspended from work for six months at Quinte Health Care because of this," he says. "I wonder how many innocent people are in jail today because they do not have the funds to hire a competent lawyer?

"Being innocent gets you nowhere if you are represented by legal aid. It's too great a risk," he says. "Legal aid lawyers, for the most part, don't give a rat's ass.

"And that, too, is the sorry truth."

Not surprisingly, especially with his name being dragged through the mud, and with the whispers around him turning into screams, Brian Leckie has now been diagnosed with the same condition he treats -- post- traumatic stress disorder.

"This has devastated me," he admits, sitting there in his seventh-floor apartment, pulling out one defence file after another ... talking about his own trauma.

"At one point, I honestly thought I was going to jump out the window," he says. "Colleagues gave me those disapproving downward looks at if they believed the allegations against me must have been true.

"Only the ER nurses seemed to give me the benefit of the doubt, because they've seen it. They've seen the lies and the accusations that come through emergency rooms.

"They see it all the time."

Today Brian Leckie is back on the job at Quinte Health Care, but never again will he treat female trauma victims.

"All it takes is one false allegation, and it's all but over," he says. "I sit here as proof of that."

And nor will he ever return to Bancroft.

"Never again," he says. "Never, ever again."

As for the two women who brought this upon him, their names continued to be protected by a publication ban.

Today, therefore, is just another day.

MARK.BONOKOSKI@SUNMEDIA.CA OR 416-947-2445

Fathers for Justice campaigner posts nappies to Prime Minister Gordon Brown

Published Date: 02 May 2009

http://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/wealden/Fathers-for-Justice-campaigner-posts.5229367.jp

Father for Justice puts nappies in the post

A HEATHFIELD man dressed up as Batman to post nappies to Gordon Brown.

The New Fathers for Justice member who did not want to be named, hopes the prime minister will take notice of members' campaign to fight for the rights of fathers denied access to their children.

He took part in a nationwide campaign in the form of the superhero to ask him to stop disposing of dads in society.

Our photographer caught up with the anonymous Batman figure near the village.

He said: 'It's time this Government stopped acting like children, realised that we are sitting on a time bomb and society is in breakdown and that fathers have a right to contact with their children.'

'We need to send messages they will listen to and we are fighting for change.'

And he urges all dads and grandparents to take part in this nationwide camapign to tell Mr Brown how the Government has messed up families.