Going to Extremes (Fathers' Rights)

ifeminists.com / Fox News ^ | August 26, 2003 | Wendy McElroy

[buzzyboop]

In the last two weeks, more than 60 family court offices in Britain received hoax bombs that were apparently sent by fathers' rights extremists: perhaps by one individual. The issue of fathers' rights in the U.K. may be entering a more violent phase. If so, this should act as a cautionary tale for North America.

No one was injured by the "bombs" but Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Services were closed down, streets were cordoned off and businesses disrupted. More importantly, the "bombs" clearly threatened violence. An anti-terrorism team is investigating.

Violence is the worst possible "strategy" for anyone who seeks social reform. It is not only immoral and illegal, it is also counter-productive to the cause being advocated. The first time an innocent human being is injured, a movement using violence loses all moral credibility; it also creates a justified backlash of anger from the public and repression from authorities.

The abandonment of argument is one of the characteristics that distinguishes a revolutionary movement from one seeking reform. Reformers work to change a system of laws or attitudes, which means changing the hearts and minds of people. By contrast, revolutionaries have given up on the possibility of reform and, so, wish to sweep the system away -- a process that does not require consent. The distinction is captured in the difference in how Martin Luther King and the Black Panthers each approached black rights in the '60s.

A question confronts anyone who cares about family and children in our society: How do we prevent the fathers' rights movement in North America from becoming revolutionary? This question does not shift the blame for violence onto the shoulders of society. Those who initiate force are responsible for their criminal actions and no one should negotiate with someone who is threatening them. That is the point at which negotiation and reason end. Having stated this, however, it is productive to ask why people become frantic or enraged enough to use violence.

[buzzyboop]

...the pain of estranged fathers is almost deafening.

[familyop]

In America, it's going to be more like a political tsunami,
IMO. Lobbyists and campaign fund providers have the money,
but we have the votes. There are a lot of divorced men
in America, and even more men who are starting to wake up.
The Republican Party will need to make some repeals to get
the vote from men who are in favor of marriage and
conservatism, or it will lose an election to Hillary.

[SAJ]

''Those who initiate force are responsible for their criminal actions and no one should negotiate with someone who is threatening them''

Now, THAT's a worrysome argument. How is it that this leftist fem twit missed out the examples, for her criticism, of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, the NK Kims, Mao, Castro, Ho, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, assorted Marcoses, Ortega, Mobutu, Nkrumah, Hussein, any given so-called Ayahtollah, Mugabe, Chavez, and 200 more I can't recall just now??? HOW DID THIS BWITCH MISS OUT THESE FOLKS? Do please correct me if I'm in error, but didn't these folks as cited quite literally make a CAREER out of ''initiating force'', and quite a h*ll of a lot more force than the usual husband who's been scr*wed in court? I'm waiting, but won't hold m'breath, for twitbag here to insist vigourously on these chaps' prosecution. Yah. R-i-i-ght.

But no, just because a legal system is utterly rigged and one has precisely ZERO recourse against it, NOW -- according to twit breath -- NOW, violence is impermissible.

Full disclosure: never have been messed about in the legal ''system'', at least not by any woman and certainly not by a spouse. But, I've many friends who have been, and I'll take their part, thanks.

[familyop]

Did you read the rest of her article or any of her other
work? Although I disagree with her on some things, she
is very pro-father. Wendy wrote it for us.

[vpintheak]

How do we prevent it? Use common sense. But the liberals won't allow it, so society will continue to break down.

[donmeaker]

I have had my children taken from me based on the lies that my ex told the court. What else do these people think they can do to me?

[donmeaker]

I rest secure that though my ex manipulated the courts to take them away from me at present, I will have a future with them. I put up with her foolishness for 7 years so that the children would be old enough to remember me when I got divorced. That was the price that I paid for love of my children.

A good start would be for the courts to look with extreme prejudice at anyone who files false affidavits, or violates a court order.

Another good thing would be to have lawyers fees paid only upon completion, to take away the incentive to stall. The party who cheats the system gets to pay both sides legal fees. Of course the lawyers would hate that, because it would take away some of their options, and it could put them in the position of trying to collect money from the party that they cheated against. Well they shouldnt like it. They should treat both parties with respect, courtesy, and fairness, as officers of the court, not as shysters out for their own gain.

[mufasa]

In reading the original article, I am reminded of the words of one of the most perceptive men in American history:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it"
-- Abraham Lincoln

The people, In failing the first option, are left with only one other choice.