dad4justice-WUSA-9

This well written lettter has been sent to leaders of the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia,Ireland and England.

RE: Services for male victims of female perpetrated domestic violence

Dear President Obama,

Science has long ago abandoned the notions that often included erroneous principles like there are four elements, the earth is flat, the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around the earth. Today we imagine a more rounded and comprehensive grasp of civilization using scientific methods and data which prove once held beliefs and myths as being false. We learned that evidence based realities are better than fanciful mythologies; or have we?
Unfortunately, in certain areas we still hold fast to out dated myths and legends, for example, ideologically driven, wrongful, and harmful beliefs about domestic violence, especially that only women are victims of domestic violence and men are not deserving of equality of support services.

Science confirms gender symmetry with domestic violence victims regardless of gender, including studies from the United States Center for Disease Control, the United Kingdom’s British Crime Survey and Statistics Canada.
Additionally, over 270 academic studies from the western world universities and research agencies clearly establish that men and women equally experience domestic violence at similar degrees of seriousness.i There is no reliable evidence based data to the contrary.

Regardless of the science and facts, governments support the myth that men are perpetrators and women victims. The belief is codified through programs designed by women, for women, and administered through women, legislation like the Violence Against Women Act (USA) and resulting Office on Violence Against Women, Status of Women Canada (SOW Canada), Domestic Violence Act 1995 and associated The Ministry of Women's Affairs (New Zealand) and Women’s Aid in the UK.

Last year President Obama directed;
“The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions… If developed and used by the… government it should ordinarily be made available to the public. To the extent permitted by law, there should be transparency in the preparation, identification, and use of scientific and technological information in policy making,”
WE ASK as gender symmetry in domestic violence is proven to exist; where are the shelters and services for male victims of female abuse?

WE ASK if your administration relies on scientific fact and evidence based information from which to establish international trade policies, home security policies and other related legislation, policies, procedures and programs then how is it that no funds have been appropriately provided for direct support and shelter services, specifically, for male victims of female perpetrated domestic violence, equally to what is provided for female victims of domestic violence?

WE ASK that you facilitate the establishment with sufficient funds ministries, departments, or commissions for men, as applicable.

WE ASK that you ensure government domestic violence policies, procedures, and programs provide equally for all persons adversely impacted regardless of gender, race, religion, color or other diversities.

We no longer believe there are only four elements or the earth is flat; it is time we replace domestic violence fiction with fact. All victims are deserving of support services and facilities.

An international reply to all concerned is graciously requested

http://www.familyofmen.ca/pgm-download_media.php?name=100317_ltr_to_Obama-2.pdf

This comment from a fellow member of the MRM says it all;

I really thought that there was nothing in the messed up, corrupt, man-hating feminist sycophantic world of divorce and family law that could surprise me. I was wrong.

It seems that the Belgian justice system (and boy am I using that term loosely) has found a particulalry unique way of sticking it to divorced fathers. If this story wasn't so terribly, terribly tragic it would be laughable. What's really frightening is that the feminist socialist sycophants that run the Canadian Family Law system are probably meeting to determine why they didn't think of this first.
Sobotic Research


Father gets court bill after wife murdered kids



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/28/2858167.htm?section=justin



The Belgian state has stuck the father of five children who were murdered by their mother in 2007 with the bill for convicting her of the crime, the Le Soir daily reported.

A Belgian court sentenced Genvieve Lhermitte to life in prison in December 2009 for killing her son and four daughters, aged three to 14, while her husband was on a trip to Morocco.

As Lhermitte is incarcerated and insolvent, the Belgian state has sought to recover court expenses and collect fines from her then husband, Bouchaib Moqadem.

"I don't know what to say. I am disgusted and revolted that I, who was wrongly deprived of my children, am being asked to pay for the trial of my ex-wife, who was convicted of murdering my five children by cruelly slitting their throats," Mr Moqadem was quoted as saying by the newspaper.

The bill appears to conform with Belgian law, the newspaper said, with the state seeking funds due to have been shared from the sale of their house under their divorce agreement.

However Mr Moqadem's lawyer, in a letter to finance minister Didier Reynders, called for "administrative requirements to be balanced by decency" given the nature of the tragedy.

- AFP

In New Zealand we boast the most sexually active females in the Western World and tragically kiwi women on WINZ benefits will soon be forced to work as whores in brothels so they can feed their kids. New Zealand is a case study in social madness.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/mar/25/iceland-most-feminist-country


Iceland is fast becoming a world-leader in feminism. A country with a tiny population of 320,000, it is on the brink of achieving what many considered to be impossible: closing down its sex industry.

While activists in Britain battle on in an attempt to regulate lapdance clubs ? the number of which has been growing at an alarming rate during the last decade ? Iceland has passed a law that will result in every strip club in the country being shut down. And forget hiring a topless waitress in an attempt to get around the bar: the law, which was passed with no votes against and only two abstentions, will make it illegal for any business to profit from the nudity of its employees.

Even more impressive: the Nordic state is the first country in the world to ban stripping and lapdancing for feminist, rather than religious, reasons. Kolbr?n Halld?rsd?ttir, the politician who first proposed the ban, firmly told the national press on Wednesday: "It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold." When I asked her if she thinks Iceland has become the greatest feminist country in the world, she replied: "It is certainly up there. Mainly as a result of the feminist groups putting pressure on parliamentarians. These women work 24 hours a day, seven days a week with their campaigns and it eventually filters down to all of society."

The news is a real boost to feminists around the world, showing us that when an entire country unites behind an idea anything can happen. And it is bound to give a shot in the arm to the feminist campaign in the UK against an industry that is both a cause and a consequence of gaping inequality between men and women.

According to Icelandic police, 100 foreign women travel to the country annually to work in strip clubs. It is unclear whether the women are trafficked, but feminists say it is telling that as the stripping industry has grown, the number of Icelandic women wishing to work in it has not. Supporters of the bill say that some of the clubs are a front for prostitution ? and that many of the women work there because of drug abuse and poverty rather than free choice. I have visited a strip club in Reykjavik and observed the women. None of them looked happy in their work.

So how has Iceland managed it? To start with, it has a strong women's movement and a high number of female politicans. Almost half the parliamentarians are female and it was ranked fourth out of 130 countries on the international gender gap index (behind Norway, Finland and Sweden). All four of these Scandinavian countries have, to some degree, criminalised the purchase of sex (legislation that the UK will adopt on 1 April). "Once you break past the glass ceiling and have more than one third of female politicians," says Halld?rsd?ttir, "something changes. Feminist energy seems to permeate everything."

Johanna Sigur?ardottir is Iceland's first female and the world's first openly lesbian head of state [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/30/johanna-sigurdardottir-profile" title="Guardian.co.uk: Profile: Johanna Sigurdardottir]. Gu?r?n J?nsd?ttir of St?gam?t, an organisation based in Reykjavik that campaigns against sexual violence [http://stigamot.is/" title="St?gam?t], says she has enjoyed the support of Sigur?ardottir for their campaigns against rape and domestic violence: "Johanna is a great feminist in that she challenges the men in her party and refuses to let them oppress her."

Then there is the fact that feminists in Iceland appear to be entirely united in opposition to prostitution, unlike the UK where heated debates rage over whether prostitution and lapdancing are empowering or degrading to women. There is also public support: the ban on commercial sexual activity is not only supported by feminists but also much of the population. A 2007 poll found that 82% of women and 57% of men support the criminalisation of paying for sex ? either in brothels or lapdance clubs ? and fewer than 10% of Icelanders were opposed.

J?nsd?ttir says the ban could mean the death of the sex industry. "Last year we passed a law against the purchase of sex, recently introduced an action plan on trafficking of women, and now we have shut down the strip clubs. The Nordic countries are leading the way on women's equality, recognising women as equal citizens rather than commodities for sale."

Strip club owners are, not surprisingly, furious about the new law. One gave an interview to a local newspaper [http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16567&ew_0_a_id=359882" title="Iceland Review: Legislation Bans Stripping in Iceland] in which he likened Iceland's approach to that of a country such as Saudi Arabia, where it is not permitted to see any part of a woman's body in public. "I have reached the age where I'm not sure whether I want to bother with this hassle any more," he said.

Janice Raymond, a director of Coalition Against Trafficking in Women [http://www.catwinternational.org/" title="Coalition Against Trafficking in Women], hopes that all sex industry profiteers feel the same way, and believes the new law will pave the way for governments in other countries to follow suit. "What a victory, not only for the Icelanders but for everyone worldwide who repudiates the sexual exploitation of women," she says.

J?nsd?ttir is confident that the law will create a change in attitudes towards women. "I guess the men of Iceland will just have to get used to the idea that women are not for sale."

This documentary sounds worthwhile. It would be good to acquire and share these programs.My comment on the article -Agony of the frozen -out fathers;

A gender bias family court drove me to wear a "batman costume" and I can assure you I am no "extremist". Just a loving dad shafted by a sick system.


Quote #1: The prospects for children who don't see their fathers are bleak, according to a Unicef report in 2007. Educationally, they do less well. They are more likely to get in trouble with the police, and to abuse drugs and alcohol. They also find it more difficult to form relationships. If Broken Britain ­ that over-used moral call to arms ­ has roots, they lie in broken homes. A third of children are now growing up without parents living under the same roof. Each of the 150,000 to 200,000 separations per year is a source of sadness for the children involved, children who yearn ­ however unrealistically ­ for mummy and daddy to live together happily ever after.

Quote #2: Not only did these women want total control of the children ­ believing their love was enough ­ they also expected their exes to keep them in the style to which they had become accustomed, while the men lived in cramped bedsits. When one man finally manages to remortgage his own home to keep a working mother in hers, her response is: “OK, so I can book a holiday.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rwnsk

------------------------------------------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/7528771/Agony-of-the-frozen-out-fathers.html

The Telegraph
27 March 2010

Agony of the frozen-out fathers
By Cassandra Jardine

A new BBC series explores the reasons why fathers lose touch with their children post-separation. Cassandra Jardine investigates.

Watching a preview of next week’s BBC series Who Needs Fathers?, I felt ashamed to be a woman. The men on the programme appeared to be loving, attentive fathers ­ not extremists in Batman costumes. All they wanted was to play their part in the upbringing of their children. But, at every turn, it seemed, vengeful, short-sighted women were selfishly trying to thwart them.

These mothers cancelled contact arrangements, scuppered telephone calls, made false allegations of abuse, and prevented the men taking their children on holiday. “Honestly, I feel like throwing in the towel,” said one tearful father, who sat in his car outside his ex’s front door, waiting in vain for the children to come out. Only an emergency court order won him the day.

Not only did these women want total control of the children ­ believing their love was enough ­ they also expected their exes to keep them in the style to which they had become accustomed, while the men lived in cramped bedsits. When one man finally manages to remortgage his own home to keep a working mother in hers, her response is: “OK, so I can book a holiday.”

The programmes not only seek to explain why 40 per cent of fathers lose touch with their children within two years of divorce ­ the figure is likely to be even higher when unmarried parents separate ­ but also why this matters. Looking at the confused faces of children being fought over by parents like favourite toys, it was not difficult to imagine what might happen when they grew into teenagers, unsure about their loyalties and identities. Indeed, in the third programme, we see fatherless teenagers behaving appallingly.

The prospects for children who don't see their fathers are bleak, according to a Unicef report in 2007. Educationally, they do less well. They are more likely to get in trouble with the police, and to abuse drugs and alcohol. They also find it more difficult to form relationships. If Broken Britain ­ that over-used moral call to arms ­ has roots, they lie in broken homes.

A third of children are now growing up without parents living under the same roof. Each of the 150,000 to 200,000 separations per year is a source of sadness for the children involved, children who yearn ­ however unrealistically ­ for mummy and daddy to live together happily ever after. But those partings can be handled more or less well. “The emotionally healthy 18 year-olds,” says Judge Nicholas Crichton, who works in the family courts, “are those who can say, 'Whatever happened between my parents, I knew I was loved and that I was free to love both parents without feeling guilty.’?”

Too few children are growing up with that balance. Ninety three per cent of children live with their mother after a separation, and half then lose touch with the non-resident parent. That’s a tragedy not only for the fathers, but for the grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins who would otherwise provide a support network for those children.

Acrimony is unavoidable when relationships end, but some couples, such as Chris and Angela in the first programme, succeed in suppressing their irritation with one another for the sake of their children. Why then do so many children lose a parent to this game of bitterness and revenge?

“Henry” (not his real name), who is seen in the second programme, tells me he blames a court system that is biased against fathers, as well as being expensive, slow and ineffectual. When his daughter was born, Henry wanted to be involved, even though he had subsequently married. In return for maintenance, he saw his daughter alternate weekends and took her on holiday. “She was a massive part of my life,” he says. “Then her mother decided to live abroad.”

He fought the move but, as in 99 per cent of cases, the mother won in court. “All a woman has to say is that refusal will psychologically damage her. There’s a view that whatever is in the mother’s interests is also in the child’s interests, even though nine out of 10 non-resident parents then lose touch.”

Henry did not wish to be one of them, but despite a “mirror order” giving him visiting rights and regular contact, he has had to fight for every glimpse and chat, at a cost of £70,000, putting considerable strain on his marriage. “When we meet it’s wonderful, but it’s hard to slot into a role if you haven't seen a child regularly.”

During the whole court process he felt “like the puppet in the hands of a puppeteer”. He says: “I can understand why mothers use whatever power is at their disposal, but there was an imbalance.” Many fathers feel the same. “In order to be considered equal, you have to be twice as good,” says Simon Ramet, who has fought for half his child’s time.
“The courts are still stuck in a 1950s paradigm of mothers doing the caring, and fathers doing the earning,” says John Davies, chief executive of Families Need Fathers.

Women are also more likely to get legal aid than fathers, who have to weigh up the cost of pursuing a case against the fear that the longer they go without seeing a child, the weaker their case for maintaining contact becomes. “As few parents with young children can afford it, access to the law often depends on having wealthy parents. It tends to be a middle-class privilege,” says Sara Feilden, producer for Films of Record, who made the BBC series.

Despite fears that speaking out will harm participants’ contact arrangements, Fielden is glad to have found the brief window of opportunity in which to tell their stories. Last year, it became legal to report on the family courts, but a Bill is going through Parliament that would make it impossible, once again, to film people who have been involved in family legal disputes. “It’s unlikely that we would ever again be able to make a programme about this important issue,” she says.

The men filmed are eager to highlight the shortcomings of an overburdened legal system. Cafcass (the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service), which appoints guardians to represent the child’s interests, is so stretched that it can take nine months to produce a report. When allegations of misconduct are made, contact is rightly refused until they have been investigated. But sometimes they are purely vexatious.

Families Need Fathers is fighting for a number of changes on behalf of all non-resident parents, mothers as well as fathers. These include publication of judgments so parents know what to expect (and may therefore avoid court), sanctions for those who make false allegations, and financial recognition that non-resident parents also have to maintain a home suitable for their children to visit.

The current system finds favour with few, least of all those whose lives are dominated by endless hearings and court orders. “You should be reasonable when splitting up,” says Juliette Thomas, who was brave enough to defend on air her reluctance to allow Alex, her ex, his share of their four sons’ time: she claimed lack of clarity in his plans. Unable to agree, the court process has made the gulf between them wider and Alex resentful.

Family breakdown is not unique to the UK, but some countries seem to handle it better. In Australia, an assumption of shared parenting was introduced four years ago, backed up by family centres where separating couples could be given information and counselling on sharing their children. More children are now staying in contact with both parents as a result.

Dr Mandy Bryon, chief psychologist at Great Ormond Street Hospital, tells parents: “Whether you like it or not, you will remain in a relationship with one another as parents of your children.” To prepare for that, she believes couples need to acknowledge the errors in thinking that occur when people are angry and upset, and to anticipate the problems that cause flare- ups ­ late delivery back, changes of plans, and so on.

“If parents are living together and a child comes back from a visit to the park with the father in tears, the mother will try to reassure both parties. If they are separated she will say, 'Never again.’ The father might ask the child not to tell Mummy. Then, when the child blurts out what Daddy said, the mother thinks something sinister is going on.”

Judge Crichton already sends many parents on courses to learn about sharing. If we adopted a system similar to the Australian one, that would be compulsory before a couple go to court. “A good thing too,” he says, “as the courts are not the best place to sort these matters out.”

Both the Labour and Conservative parties have reviewed the family-law system. Henry Bellingham, shadow justice minister, talks of introducing automatic shared contact, if the Conservatives are elected, and using Sue Start centres for counselling. Looking at the worried eyes of children caught up in disputes that they don't understand, change can't come too soon.

'Who Needs Fathers’ starts on BBC Two at 9pm next Wednesday (31 March 2010).

cassandra.jardine@telegraph.co.uk

31 Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/7528771/Agony-of-the-frozen-out-fathers.html#comments

==================================

http://www.theage.com.au/national/rising-suicide-toll-kept-under-wraps-20100326-r37k.html>


Rising suicide toll kept under wraps
JULIE ROBOTHAM
March 27, 2010




REVISED suicide figures suggest at least 180 more people took their lives in 2007 than previously acknowledged, sources in the mental health sector say.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has kept the official numbers under wraps since it backed out of a plan to release them last Wednesday, citing ''a technical issue which may impact on the quality of some estimates''.

But health advocates close to the process said they understood the revision - undertaken to update the figures with the results of coronial inquiries that had not been concluded when the statistics were collected - had alarmed health bureaucrats who feared it reflected badly on the government's mental health and suicide prevention policies.

If confirmed, the figures would show an increase of about 10 per cent on the 1881 deaths formally documented by the bureau as suicide, and fuel growing controversy over the integrity of the suicide count, which had appeared to decline in recent years.

About a third of deaths investigated by the coroner were unfinalised when the bureau compiled the initial version of its annual Causes of Death report, rendering the suicide statistics a probable underestimate.

It is the first time the bureau has reopened a previous year's death statistics. It has committed to repeating the practice for three years.

Ian Hickie, executive director of the brain and mind institute at the University of Sydney, said the bureau should be required to release the data immediately. The bureau's statement was ''a completely non-transparent response … There's been no explanation and no time frame for when they will actually release it.

''It's a serious policy and public health question. Are we in the middle of a serious increase in suicide, as some have suggested, or not?''

Professor Hickie said suicide rates had risen, especially among the young in countries affected by the economic crisis.

At the least the bureau should tell doctors of the magnitude of any rise and whether particular demographics were more affected, so prevention strategies could be tailored.

The bureau acknowledges suicide figures are likely to be incomplete.

For help or information visit beyondblue.org.au, call Suicide Helpline Victoria on 1300 651 251, or Lifeline on 131 114

The woman who complained was a vindictive and vengeful busy body bitch (a feminazi off duty cop). The keystone cops bring this father before the Courts, but the disgraceful lunkheads can't solve the Kirsty Bentley murder cold case - (eh Greg and Rex!!) How dare the maggot cause so much pain for a decent dad.Get real you corrupt politicial cops and do your job properly for once!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3490898/Smacking-dad-in-court

The Christchurch man sentenced for punching his four-year-old son says he is not confident of winning an appeal against his conviction.

"I did not come up to win, just to make a point," James Mason said after a Court of Appeal hearing at Wellington yesterday where he challenged his conviction for assaulting a child.

His trial last May had been described as a test case for anti- smacking law changes.

The District Court trial judge Michael Crosbie disavowed that and said it would have been dealt with no differently before the law change.

Mason, 51, a musician and hotel maintenance worker, and a father of six, spoke for himself at the Court of Appeal with his wife of 25 years, Ann Mason, at his side.

"I know what I did. I'm not confident of winning but you have to stand up for what you believe in," he said after the hearing.

Mason said outside of court that he had done the parenting course required under the supervision sentence but, with respect to the "lovely" people that ran it, all he got out of it was a gold certificate.

He has given up his daily walks with his younger children and they "get away" with more because he feels he cannot do anything about their behaviour.

Mason said he wants to form the "Jo Public" political party and stand for Parliament with policies including changing the parental discipline law, getting more support for new mothers in the first weeks after giving birth, and raising the legal drinking age back up to 21 years.

He told the three judges, who reserved their decision, he had tugged his son's hair and flicked his ear when the defiant boy wanted to ride off on his bike while Mason was dealing with two younger children.

But witnesses said he yanked the boy's ear and punched his face during the incident on the Bridge of Remembrance on December 19, 2007.

He was not arrested at the scene, was left to care for his children, and later told he would receive only a warning.

He was charged after one of the witnesses complained to police and media weeks later, he told the Court of Appeal.

One of his complaints was that the charge he was found guilty of contained both the pulling of the ear and the punching allegations and the jury was directed that he should be convicted if either claim was proved.

The judge sentenced him to nine months supervision on the basis that he punched the child.

Mason told the Court of Appeal he thought the charge should have been split so each act was a separate charge. It should have been clear what the jury thought he had done, he said.


But Crown lawyer Megan Ball said the evidence supported Judge Crosbie's decision to sentence on the basis of a punch.

A SPANISH Teacher was explaining to her class that in Spanish, unlike English, nouns are designated as either masculine or feminine.

'House' for instance, is feminine: 'la casa.'
'Pencil,' however, is masculine: 'el lapiz.'

A student asked, 'What gender is 'computer'?'

Instead of giving the answer, the teacher split the class into two
groups, male and female, and asked them to decide for themselves whether computer' should be a masculine or a feminine noun. Each group was asked to give four reasons for its recommendation.

The men's group decided that 'computer' should definitely be of the feminine gender ('la computadora'), because:

1. No one but their creator understands their internal logic;

2. The native language they use to communicate with other computers is
incomprehensible to everyone else;

3. Even the smallest mistakes are stored in long term memory for possible later retrieval; and

4. As soon as you make a commitment to one, you find yourself spending half your pay check on accessories for it.

(THIS GETS BETTER!)

The women's group, however, concluded that computers should be Masculine ('el computador'), because:

1. In order to do anything with them, you have to turn them on;

2. They have a lot of data but still can't think for themselves;

3. They are supposed to help you solve problems, but half the time they ARE the problem; and

4. As soon as you commit to one, you realize that if you had waited a little longer, you could have gotten a better model.

The women won.

Send this to all the smart women you know...and all the men that have a sense of humour.