 There are many in the Family Law and Family Court reform movements who believe that the protest methods employed by Fathers 4 Justice (F4J) do more harm than good. Some even claim that their stunts set the movement for fathers’ rights back. Here’s a new story just out.
‘Spider Man’ charged over father’s rights protest - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Chick staged a similar stunt last year atop a crane next to east London’s Tower Bridge to demand access to his four-year-old daughter, who he has not seen since March 2003.He says he is being denied access to her by his former partner, despite a court order allowing him two hours each fortnight.
Notice his case. The court has only authorized two hours every two weeks. What kind of nonsense is this? How is it, in our modern age, that such an order doesn’t result in the judge being run out of town, or even prosecuted? How is it possible, in this day and age, that we so easily cast a judgmental eye on a father? What has happened to the concept of fundamental rights to enjoying a relationship with your own children?
I’m not arguing that fathers, or mothers, “own” their children. However, I am lamenting that current family courts, and the whores who ply their despicable trade in the halls of the courts have created a situation that is so muddied, so ridiculous, so egregious, that one could almost begin to accept the idea that we should ban any kind of natural family. Perhaps children would be better off, in this environment, to be raised apart from natural parents, perhaps outlaw natural birth altogether, and just have children conceived anonymously, in vitro, and then raise in some kind of collective “village” environment, with no mommy or daddy.
Perhaps, this is the long range plan of the people involved in this loony system. All I know, is that what is happening nowadays in family courts everywhere in the developed world, is so crazy, that I simply can’t believe that there isn’t a massive uprising against it.
We, as a society, seem to have forgotten that morals actually mean something, and that we should hold people to a moral standard that maintains the health of the society. Instead, we are paying people to live out their depraved lack of morals in such a way that is harming our society.
1 response so far ↓
1 DADSVOTE.COM // Oct 6, 2007 at 11:21 am
F4J is right to engage in civil disobedience. They could improve the RESULTS of thier activity through better media coverage and a more serious presentation. (Comic book costumes make it easy for the uninformed to dismiss them as a bunch of kooks.) Ghandi wore a suit when he visited England. In the US, african american protesters dressed up too. The young black men who were attacked by dogs in Birmingham Alabama were wearing suits, and this imagery became some of the most motivating in the nation.
F4J would be taken more seriously by the population at large if they wore suits, got better media coverage and selected tactics more symbolic of the issue than the pie in your face “prankster” style actions they often take. The style is inconsistent with the horror of forcibly separating children and parents. This is a grave matter. Direct action YES, comic book costumes, NO.
You must log in to post a comment.