*dagnabbit, hit add instead of URL*

BBC

Apparently a 'fringe' group of Fathers 4 Justices, but still. . .

[ 18 January 2006: Message edited by: fern hill ]

quote:

---

Ben Ando said police had been investigating extreme groups linked to Fathers 4 Justice for some time.

"The plan only got as far as what they [police] called the chattering stage," he said.

"No real reconnaissance was carried out, no actual kidnap attempt was made, no-one has been arrested, and the police are not convinced those at the centre of the alleged plan had the capability to carry it out."

---

BBC

How scary is England? Though I have forgotten the details, I have never forgotten the story of Irish men falsely imprisoned for bombing and even when it was clear that they had been falsely imprisoned, still the British held them.

Is any kind of dissent being suppressed in England?

quote:

---

On 7 December, Maya Evans, a vegan chef aged 25, was convicted of breaching the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act by reading aloud at the Cenotaph the names of 97 British soldiers killed in Iraq. So serious was her crime that it required 14 policemen in two vans to arrest her. She was fined and given a criminal record for the rest of her life. Freedom is dying.

---

And.

quote:

---

Eighty-year-old John Catt served with the RAF in the Second World War. Last September, he was stopped by police in Brighton for wearing an "offe! nsive" T-shirt, which suggested that Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes. He was arrested under the Terrorism Act and handcuffed, with his arms held behind his back. The official record of the arrest says the "purpose" of searching him was "terrorism" and the "grounds for intervention" were "carrying placard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info" (sic). He is awaiting trial.

---

Freedom is Dying

I don't know about this group and perhaps they are loony because you'd have to be to consider doing something like that.

"Shades of Earth First", would be my thinking but then I suspect that George Bush might be spying on U.S. citizens.

However, Fathers 4 Justice is without doubt a looney organization all on its own. Given some of their past stunts, I think I would be watching them too. They aren't just dissenters and protesters: they plan stunts that could get themselves and many innocent people hurt.

[ 18 January 2006: Message edited by: skdadl ]

To me, both scaling the walls of Buck House and tossing coloured powder down into the Commons raise serious risks. Either of those actions might believably have tempted an armed guard to fire, eg, or at least to respond violently, in anticipation of violence.

quote:

---

To me, both scaling the walls of Buck House and tossing coloured powder down into the Commons raise serious risks. Either of those actions might believably have tempted an armed guard to fire, eg, or at least to respond violently, in anticipation of violence.

As soon as that happens, everyone in the vicinity is in danger. These clowns never think of that.

---

quote:

---

To me, both scaling the walls of Buck House and tossing coloured powder down into the Commons raise serious risks. Either of those actions might believably have tempted an armed guard to fire, eg, or at least to respond violently, in anticipation of violence.

---

Yes, skdadl that seems true and I stand corrected. I was only looking at it from the stunt perspective and in that sense there are alternatives which would not put anyone else at risk.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Kidnapping a child would certainly send an immediate message to the world: "We've lost it!"

---

quote:

---

MONTREAL - Authorities have arrested a man dressed as comic-book hero Robin in the superstructure of Montreal's Jacques Cartier Bridge.

He climbed the structure early Monday morning and unfurled a banner demanding "parental equality".

Traffic was halted for three hours on the 3.4-kilometre bridge, which links Montreal with Longueuil on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River.

The man said he is a member of Fathers 4 Justice (F4J), the Canadian arm of a British group of the same name.

---

Perhaps someone could convince F4J that holding the high priestess of the fathers' rights group in Canada - Anne Cools - hostage for a few months would be a strategic move?

[ 18 January 2006: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

quote:

---

As in - look how lost we are since the collusion of evil women with the law on their side has cost us access to our own kids! We are capable of all manner of craziness! Thus proving just how far we will go to be good fathers!

---

quote:

---

One wonders if many of these fathers have been denied access to their children for a reason?[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by brebis noire:

As opposed to being denied access for no reason at all?

---

I had absolutely no problem with the "Batman" stunt. Maybe the guy was a nutbar, maybe not. I know of leftist demonstrations where people wore costumes.

I objected to the disruption of Parliament because I believe that Parliaments should be given every assistance in pushing representative democracy as far as it can go. They should not be intimidated. I felt this way when OCAP wanted to address the Ontario Legislature and I'm an overall OPAC supporter.

Apparently (from this discussion) some members of the group discussed (in a purely speculative or non-serious way) about kidnapping Tony Blair's kid. That would have been a bad thing, but apparently it hadn't really gotten to the conspiracy to commit a crime stage.

Regardless, my major reason for typing is that I joined one such group when I'd been pushed to the edge of my sanity in a custody and access fight and a lot of the guys were decent, regular guys and listening to them and being listened to by them, saved me. (They didn't call themselves a "father's rights" group, but advertised themselves as for any parent unjustly excluded from their childrens' lives. Or grandparents of children excluded.)

There was a very good report on the child support system in Aus late last year (here is a summary), and I really felt for the men who clearly were short-changed both financially and in terms of access to their children.

I am sure some of the people involved in such groups are nutters, but the activities of a fringe element don't negate some of the real issues that exist. Unfortunately, it is rare that stunts like all those mentioned above brings positive attention to the group and their concerns. Maybe they are so desperate they feel they have no other options left.

The group you described, though not all its members shared the same analysis regarding the reasons why they were denied custody, seems motivated by a need for fairness, not vindication such as F4J.

quote:

---

posted by thwap: ... my major reason for typing is that I joined one such group when I'd been pushed to the edge of my sanity in a custody and access fight and a lot of the guys were decent, regular guys and listening to them and being listened to by them, saved me. (They didn't call themselves a "father's rights" group, but advertised themselves as for any parent unjustly excluded from their childrens' lives. Or grandparents of children excluded.)

Some of it was problematic, but some of it is just ordinary people being treated badly and therefore feeling considerable pain.

---

quote:

---

posted by Walker: And yet ... the F4J group didn't get praised for their 'Batman on the outside of Buck Palace' stunt. They got a range of responses from ridicule to derision, whereas someone like Greenpeace now has an aura of 'fighting the good fight'.

I think it's got something to do with male stereotypes and their incongruity with the image of men as caring fathers. People just don't get it, or don't take it seriously, or actually don't like the idea of it.

---

[ 18 January 2006: Message edited by: kiwi_chick ]

[ 18 January 2006: Message edited by: kiwi_chick ]

quote:

---

posted by Walker: ... past stunts (Buck Palace and Parliament House) haven't endangered children or the general public.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deBeauxOs:
Wrong. The stunt pulled in September, in Montréal, involved a F4J member who climbed the Jacques-Cartier bridge during morning traffic. That was considered a threat to the safety of drivers and passengers in vehicles; the bridge was closed for 3 hours. I posted the news item and the link at the top of this thread.

---

I didn't make any reference to the incident in Canada, only to the 2 incidents in London ("...past stunts (Buck Palace and Parliament House)...").

I was specific in quoting these 2 incidents only. So you are accusing me of being wrong about something I didn't mention, discuss or reference.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walker:
But the more I read and see on TV about it, the more I am convinced that there are inequities in the system, and I believe not just in Australia either.

There was a very good report on the child support system in Aus late last year (here is a summary), and I really felt for the men who clearly were short-changed both financially and in terms of access to their children.

---

I think there is an important distinction to be made between what people feel are 'inequities within the system' and 'situations where one or both parents is not acting like an adult or one or both has a huge vindictive streak' - that does translate into a very real individual inequities with regard to the access set-up. I'm sure every one of us knows at least one guy who has the short end of the stick on this, and I definitely feel bad for the one or two that I know who are going through this right now.

But to maintain that there is a systemic bias against men as parents - I dunno. Yes, there are women who manipulate the system, that I can believe. However, when I look at the vast majority of couples with kids, what I see is a mother who has made the lion's share of practical 'sacrifices' - time off work, physical scars and lasting effects of pregnancy (no matter how small these may be), diverted career path, time and angst invested in all kinds of child-related activities, the list of which is too long to even start with here. OK - I know that parenting is not a contest, and that many men are more suited to the task than many women are, but it's still not the norm. Given the norm, it is very easy for a mother to use her child(ren) in an ultimate manoeuvre when a relationship has gone toxic.

First:

quote:

---

Maybe they are so desperate they feel they have no other options left.

---

Anyone who reacts to life that way is not going to be the good parent. He or she may well deserve empathy and good counselling, but the very act of leaping to that conclusion is an indication of problems that need to be addressed, and certainly children should not left vulnerable to the moods of someone in that state of mind.

Second: The "stunts" in London, as you call them, do set up a level of public danger that most other forms of civil disobedience do not.

There is an obvious difference between, eg, chaining yourself to a bench in a visitors' gallery in the Commons and making a racket - that has been done by feminists in Canada - and actually throwing something from that gallery into the Commons. Guards would be justified in the latter instance, as they would not be in the former, of assuming that Parliament was under dangerous attack. Defend first; ask questions later. And the defence of Parliament can always be dangerous.

The same thing applies to an attempt to break in to the residence of the queen. She will be defended first; questions get asked later. And the defence can always be dangerous.

Volunteering to get yourself shot is one thing; being stupid enough not to recognize that you could be putting a lot of other innocent people in danger is quite another. I would never ally myself politically with anyone so self-important.

[ 19 January 2006: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

So courts give women the benefit of the doubt. I have a hard time thinking that this is necessarily and always a bad thing. And it does not mean that there is a 'bias' within the system.

---

It doesn't??

quote:

---

To me, both scaling the walls of Buck House and tossing coloured powder down into the Commons raise serious risks. Either of those actions might believably have tempted an armed guard to fire, eg, or at least to respond violently, in anticipation of violence.

---

Are you fucking kidding me??
So in Quebec City I should have been shot for shaking the chain link fence??

I wam dying to hear the diference between your "respond violently, in anticipation of violence" and the more common euphanism, "pre-emptive strike"

quote:

---

Second: The "stunts" in London, as you call them, do set up a level of public danger that most other forms of civil disobedience do not.

There is an obvious difference between, eg, chaining yourself to a bench in a visitors' gallery in the Commons and making a racket - that has been done by feminists in Canada - and actually throwing something from that gallery into the Commons. Guards would be justified in the latter instance, as they would not be in the former, of assuming that Parliament was under dangerous attack. Defend first; ask questions later. And the defence of Parliament can always be dangerous.

---

Guards "would be justified" (your words) in shooting them?? If it was a right wing troll saying these things they would be banned.

So if Singh and the catapult for e.g. had been shot at police you think this would have been justifiable?

Quebec was alot more rough than bags of purple flour.

My goodness, thankfully no one like you is in charge of the police.

Reading between the lines, you dont like the message so you condemn their tactics. How is this different then every right-wing nutbar who calls for crackdowns on us in the name of 'public security'?

No, shaking a chain-link fence does not merit an aggressive response from the police/army. Making a noise in the Commons does not merit an aggressive response.

And perhaps nothing merits a violent response, although an immediate violent response to some particular actions can be anticipated.

Throwing an unknown substance down into the Commons is going to bring a predictable reaction. Attempting to break into the queen's residence is going to bring a similar reaction.

quote:

---

Anyone who reacts to life that way is not going to be the good parent. He or she may well deserve empathy and good counselling, but the very act of leaping to that conclusion is an indication of problems that need to be addressed, and certainly children should not left vulnerable to the moods of someone in that state of mind.

---

I do oppose the way these groups blame "feminism" for their problems. I do not see a "systemic" [as in specific rules and policies favouring women] in the family court system. (In my personal case, a woman judge, woman mediator, woman lawer, and feminist woman friend, were sources of comfort for me. My problem though, was a moron of a judge [male] who, I believe, thought that his little way of rectifying past injustices towards women was to believe everything they said and to denigrate everything men said.)

quote:

---

However, no one has been arrested and police sources suggest that the chatter never really reached the level of a "plot" - in the sense of a conspiracy to commit a criminal act - though security around the Blair family is understood to have been reviewed.

---

quote:

---

The Sun claimed the plan was to hold Leo for a short period as a "symbolic gesture", though some are wondering if the symbolic gesture was really the story itself.

Rebekah Wade, the paper's editor, has long resented her failure to win industry awards and is understood to be keen to get more exclusive, hard-hitting stories. After all, how does a story about a few men having a chat in the pub become a front page "world exclusive" about a kidnap plot?

It would not be the first time that a tabloid newspaper has over-egged a crime story as the News of the World was accused of doing over a supposed plot to kidnap David Beckham's family.

---

Here's the link

I often scratch my head in confusion about the issue of father's rights or family court bias. If shared parenting were mandatory, I really don't see how that would keep parents who hate each other from going to court and fighting over custody of the kids. It seems to me that if two parents are that hell-bent on fighting for their "rights" versus "what is best for the children in the here and now", then all the mandatory legislation in the world isn't going to change the fact that one or both parents are going to access the courts and fight over the kids.

There are many reasons why people access the courts, but in this country, with legal aid cuts in every province and the cost of hiring legal counsel growing beyond the means of most people, I think that we should be doing more in the way of providing parents with an alternative to litigation.

Family mediation is one way of doing it, if anything should be mandatory, it should be that both parents are made to attend parenting classes when they separate so they can learn how to stop fighting with each other.

THE MOST POPULAR tactic used by lawyers representing "women parties" is to ALLEGE either a "history of violence" or "sexual misconduct".

It can take YEARS to get out from under the ROCK of an unfounded accusation!

Even when the allegation is found to be UNTRUE... there are NO penalties for "uttering a falsehood".

I know this from PERSONAL experience.

Have I been driven CRAZY by this? Yes.

Has it affected my ability to form relationships and my ability to trust ANYONE? YES.

The "playing field" between custodial and non-custodial persons is SO UNEQUAL, it is ridiculous.

quote:

---

---

These Centres will provide separating couples an opportunity to resolve their child custody disputes without having to go to Court. They will assist couples immediately following their separation, helping them establish positive post-separation relationships as early as possible, while putting up front the principle of the best interests of their children. Through the Centres, separating parents will have free access to information, advice and up to three hours of dispute resolution sessions with a parenting advisor to help resolve disputes and reach agreement on parenting plans.

The centres will not just be for separating families. They will also help couples access pre marriage education and help families who are experiencing relationship difficulties with information and access to family skills training and support.

An important aim of the centres will be to assist fathers in maintaining a substantial role in their children’s lives immediately following a relationship breakdown, because research has shown this to be a crucial time in determining long term parenting arrangements.

The new network of Family Relationship Centres will be a partnership between the government and the many well established community services such as Relationships Australia, Centacare and the members of Family Services Australia. The establishment of the network will be funded by the Government.

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

Second: The "stunts" in London, as you call them, do set up a level of public danger that most other forms of civil disobedience do not.

There is an obvious difference between, eg, chaining yourself to a bench in a visitors' gallery in the Commons and making a racket - that has been done by feminists in Canada - and actually throwing something from that gallery into the Commons. Guards would be justified in the latter instance, as they would not be in the former, of assuming that Parliament was under dangerous attack. Defend first; ask questions later. And the defence of Parliament can always be dangerous.

The same thing applies to an attempt to break in to the residence of the queen. She will be defended first; questions get asked later. And the defence can always be dangerous.

Volunteering to get yourself shot is one thing; being stupid enough not to recognize that you could be putting a lot of other innocent people in danger is quite another. I would never ally myself politically with anyone so self-important.

[ 19 January 2006: Message edited by: skdadl ]

---

I suppose one's definition of 'danger' is relative, or in the eyes of the beholder, because frankly it's stretching it to say that throwing a powder filled balloon in Parliament or scaling Buck Palace walls is (1) calling for an armed response and (2) putting others in danger. Unless bobbies have been issued with grenade launchers these days.

And from memory I don't think Batman was trying to enter Buck Palace, just get on the parapet (??) to get public and media interest.

quote:

---

I suppose one's definition of 'danger' is relative, or in the eyes of the beholder, because frankly it's stretching it to say that throwing a powder filled balloon in Parliament or scaling Buck Palace walls is (1) calling for an armed response and (2) putting others in danger. Unless bobbies have been issued with grenade launchers these days.

---

Well, no: you'd be wrong there.

The police - well-trained police, anyway - will definitely react differently to people who are just making a noise and people who are throwing things.

The police can't know that the powder you just threw into the chamber of the Commons is purple cornstarch or whatever. All they know is that you threw powder on to living people, and it could be dangerous. They have to react right away.

And it doesn't matter that that clown didn't "intend" to go beyond the parapet. How the hell can the cops know that? He appeared to be doing something physically threatening.

To acts of real physical threat, the police will overreact. They have little choice.

quote:

---

The police can't know that the powder you just threw into the chamber of the Commons is purple cornstarch or whatever. All they know is that you threw powder on to living people, and it could be dangerous. They have to react right away.

---

That being said, when protests turn to something that, shall we say, "gets in the physical space" of another person, then it becomes an attack and it is counterproductive.

Do I think rogue members of F4J would have kidnapped Blair's son? Absolutely not. That it had been contemplated, however, is very troubling and has probably set back whatever credibility the organization had built since it's inception a few years ago.

As for the Canadian branch, I would be surprised if they have 100 active members. From what I have seen on the news or read about, it's basically the same 5 or 6 fathers and one woman who are carrying out the protests in BC and Ontario. Kind of makes you wonder what the other 100 members are up to?

Maybe the remainder of F4J Canada believes that it's okay to protest as long as someone else gets arrested.

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: stupendousgirlie ]

quote:

---

---

And it doesn't matter that that clown didn't "intend" to go beyond the parapet. How the hell can the cops know that? He appeared to be doing something physically threatening.

To acts of real physical threat, the police will overreact. They have little choice.

If they overreact to noisemakers (as, unfortunately, many do), then they have been badly trained. But reacting to what looks like assault? Of course they have to.

quote:

---

---

This may all be true (even though the police actually DIDN'T overreact and open fire, so your argument is not borne out by the events) but where were the hundreds of innocent bystanders who are supposedly at risk in the Buck House and Parliament incidents?

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

Umm, isn't that the point? To cause a fuss, to get people's attention?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walker:
Here is a news report about the group's disbandment.

---

from the article:

quote:

---

"The truth is that our organisation has been run largely by women for two years. A nine-month pregnant woman will turn up and walk for miles at one of our demonstrations while an able- bodied father can't be bothered."

---