As you know, I believe there are inequities facing men in Family Law. Specifically because of their gender when it comes to custody issues. (not my fight, thank the gods) And perhaps not specifically because of gender in other aspects of Family Law, but circumstance often puts men in a disadvantageous position there too. Be that as it may, I'd never crawl into bed with a lobby group like "F.A.C.T.". With persons in authority like coroners giving standing to looney's like "F.A.C.T.", men don't need "feminists" to "screw" us, we're doing a fine job ourselves.
This is straying from the point, but I hope Landsberg isn't adhering to the view that all recovered memory is to be taken without critical examination.
There are incompetent and unscrupulous therapists and others, and false memories not only can be generated, which has been proven through experimentation, it has happened, and innocent people have been put behind bars because of this.
Memory is a very maleable thing, not the video recorder it was once touted to be.
I'm not sure, either that the regulation passed by the "Rae Government" is at all incomprehensible.
It may have been felt that in order to encourage more candor and increase the College's ability to get to the truth, and solve problems within it's community, they needed this regulation.
One could-- and should-- argue that the criminal and civil courts should have precidence over the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and I'd agree.
But I wouldn't say the regulation is "incomprehensible." Misguided, yes.