F4J (UK) Moves to Follow New Zealand Bothering Campaign
From: The Honor Network
Priority News Exchange Program News Item (PNEP)
In a move that is bound to turn heads F4J (UK) has made the first moves to copy the New Zealand MRAs bothering campaign of judges in response to the failure of any kind of reform from the UK establishment. Using a new term of “Judgebusting” they hope to apply more pressure on the government to not ignore their just demands. Ten of the UK worst judicial offenders have had their personal details, including addresses, published on the Internet as a first step in this new move. F4J wants family courts to be open to scrutiny so they may be gauge on what is happening, and believes there should be a presumption of equal access by both parents when court proceedings begin- instead of the social dysfunction that is put forward under the veil of feminist compassion.
F4J’s Guy Harrison said: We want to name and shame them rather than them standing behind the name of the family courts, so people know where they live and what they’ve done. Family court judges should be gunned for state sponsored child abuse.
Well to prove Guy Harrison right the professional spokesman came out from behind the Judicial Communication Office to say: The Government has recently consulted on whether family proceedings should continue to be heard in private, and many judges responded to the consultation by supporting greater transparency including allowing the media access to provide anonymised reports of proceedings, to improve public confidence.
This kind of government screen has been heard for decades and is an old tactic that is meant to outlast the public’s fast changing attention span. Back in 1990s Canada had a commission touring the country for a year, which was said to be compiling a just position on these issues of access, support & more. In the end little was suggested, nothing changed and the report wasn’t even distributed widely.
The Canadian government failed to inform men’s groups of the times and places for these meetings and had these meetings during the working hours of a workweek (which assured non-working women 100% of the seats at these commissions). I alone represented men over a decade ago at the Vancouver meeting, only out of luck as I stumbled upon it after working out at a gym, and hastily drop all my plans to be the lone man representing fathers in the afternoon session I attended.
Feminists were there in huge numbers for they had all received notification of the meetings far in advance and some stood behind the parliamentarians whispering in their ears. The point of this explanation is that this gone on for decades, so I repeat that these moves are cynically untaken by English speaking nations establishments to deflect mounting pressure in the hope that the public will lose interest. These tactics have proved to work time and time again against many causes.
To date in the UK government has tried to discredit the UK fathers & men’s movement with its use of infiltration, media discrediting tactics (as was done when the group stormed Buckingham Place and the media instead centered their articles on a government supplied story about an activist’s girlfriend’s merely break up with her bow), or in another example supplying the story about a fake plot to kidnapped the Prime Minister’s son (on the collaborating story of what someone said at a pub???). The mighty power of pub hearsay thus trumps millions of men’s shouts for justice!
More positively it is inspiring to see cooperation and absorption of tactics at this level (for repetition being the sincerest form of flattery), but lets take a moment and thank Hands On Parenting http://www.handsonequalparent.org.nz (and any other organizations in New Zealand that have taken part) for showing MRAs around the world an excellent method to raise the pressure on these governments around the western world. These modern establishments are now on notice that we aren’t going to go away and commit suicide quietly, like many other poor men who have no access to their kids, and we will not allow ourselves to be nibble to death by ducks in any form either. Instead, steadily we will escalate until actions are taken by governments to offer true equality to both parents, true equality in the work place for men, true equality in taxation and true public expenditure in health care- among other things for the list is long.
We have noted many in New Zealand have pooh-poohed Hands on Equal Parenting for their aggressiveness in being so impolite as to hold lawyers and judges responsible for the closed-door sessions in cutting off dads from access. In figures out of the US 92% of children go to women and just 4 % to men (with the remaining 4% often being children given to the state over a willing husband). The elephant in the room, that such appeasers play down or ignore, in their slow ineffective steps at not upsetting anyone in power, is the huge numbers of fathers committing suicide that have no access! If proof were needed to draw a scientific connection on this it would be well to do a study! But do not hold your breath, for my guess is they do not want to know (plausible deniability maybe)?
A patch work of special interests, that profit from this dysfunctional system, now grasp at straws by trying to make this an academic exercise in the rule by law (thereby saying judges shouldn’t he held accountable for that is undo pressure on their impartiality). By arguing this straw man, and to also act more compassionate than these angry men, is very cloudlike or aloof to other men’s pain, suicide and abuse and additionally shows something sadly deeper in these men.
What is really going on is many such men don’t like other men (as nature has made men rivals over the smallest of things) and can’t even be honest about their indirectness (consciously or unconsciously). Thus many such men think of compassion in female terms only. Thus talking compassion gets you into female Valhalla (or more actuality solipsistic heaven). These men, many of them claiming to say they are against what is going on, in drips and bites, never really muster the fortitude to thoroughly shake their effeminate upbringing (which many admit in a general way is a problem, but always involves the other guy- for “I’m all man”). This too could be said of me here too, in this argument, but the fact that I bring this up means I’ve considered that my dislike for these Appeasers, Uncle Toms or Manginas maybe nature based too. I’m sure when they read this they will say something like, Don’t label people or, Generalizations don’t help. These kind of expressions are related directly to simple (once learned) advertising campaign profiles, which uses these self-actualizes needs to feel good about themselves over really getting into this issue to fix it proper. These self-actualizers are put in 3 groups, I Am Me types, Inner Growth Types and Societal Concerned Types. The last one deals with those who falsely think they are involved, when in fact they are buying products that make them feel good for pretending to do something for the society. Instead they are dupes, who are subconsciously played for profit and play at helping the world (when in fact doing very little, outside of talking).
Here at the Honor Network we have given some of these men, in our blogger ranking system our Mangina icon, to let them know that appeasers can have good ideas in appeasement too.
As for the argument of letting judges impartially decide what is best for the family? First off, in the past families were not under the jurisdiction of judges unless a law was proven to be broken (at least in many advance western cultures), and second, legislating from the bench is a violation of the separation of powers that western countries used to have such forms of checks and balances. Once this is violated all bets are off, and thus impolitely calling of the new oligarchies is very moderate, and will be regarded as such in the future in this humble narrators opinion.
An oligarchy leading the executive level of government (PM, President etc.) is easily identifiable to the masses as a tyrant. The idea of parliament as a tyrant is understandable to Americans who refused to be ruled from across the Atlantic. Yet there are 3 clear identifiable levels of government, and the last one being the judiciary. The judiciary can cross over to be tyrannical as any other branch (as the classics point out repeatedly). If men will not stand against such power overreach who will (Women and children)?
Gandhi isn’t applicable to our situation for he was a nationalist and thus had the majority on his side, and thus asking for democracy in the voting box was a simple goal for justice, though all knew violence would come when Hindus and Moslems ruled themselves (instead of the British). Gandhi’s hope that they wouldn’t do violence doesn’t save him from responsibility, for the Greeks considered hope an evil!
As the voting public continues to grow in the female direction (from nature, suicides, men fleeing aboard (or going under the radar into the ghost nation), or are turned into Manginas these men arguing for the ballot box reforms will seem to grow fainter by the day. Throughout history oligarchies are incapable of reforming themselves, and when they are confronted only very late in the game offer trinkets in exchange for justice. This has been avoided by some western nations in the past. Yet, as we are constantly reminded these balancing leaders were all white men- who prized, the classics, checks and balances and the rule of law. Now these men of history are compared with Nazis, and so are not here to bring balance, but keep their head down, for the most part, and look out for #1. Instead we have solipsists all around us, who follow humanism (the new religion).
The new feminist oligarchs will not give up there power with out pressure (soft or hard). The vast majority of the effeminate voting public will not give up any power they have for they are slaves to their fears, and the leadership need only say the angry white men are coming, the angry white men are coming and at the drop of a hat the effeminates will greedily hold on to any list of privileges they have now.
Martin Luther King could never have won in the South by voting, for most living there were whites, as the Catholics are the minority in North Ireland. In the case of Martin Luther King he changed the laws through peacefully means, but not through the ballot box in Southern states! Or in Northern Ireland power-sharing was won, like it or not, through ugly violent bloody methods. Neither of these oppressed groups felt that they had a chance to win when the population was made up of those benefiting from the system that made them the last in line for everything. This points to things getting uglier, as the establishment will not change with out real pressure.