Matt O’Connor : What Fathers4Justice Stands For

From Matt O’Connor’s blog at Fathers4Justice :

..Let me spell out what we stand for – what we have ALWAYS stood for since 2001.

  1. Legal presumption to contact – we will give all parents and grandparents a right in law to see their children and grandchildren.
  2. Legal presumption to equal parenting – we will give all parents the right in law to be treated equally and share parenting time equally.
  3. We advocate a new Bill of Rights for the Family in the 21st Century as outlined in our Blueprint for Family Law.
  4. We support wholesale family law reform, open courts and a public enquiry led by Sir Bob Geldof into the operations of the secret family courts. Courts are for criminals, not families.
  5. We support a Truth & Reconciliation Commission which will investigate the conduct of the judiciary and government and compensate those families affected for loss of family life.
  6. We believe Child Support should mean emotional and financial support and the benefits should be divided on the basis of parenting time.

Our starting point is this: as fathers we are not recognised in law. We have no representation in our parliament and no voice in our country. Clearly, the other groups do not represent our views either. This isn’t a difficult or complicated issue. Some people seem to be getting tangled up in cod philosophy by over-intellectualising the issues.

Let me be clear – this is a Civil Rights issue and a Human Rights issue.

Let me remind everyone that David Norgrove said last year that fathers had no rights and deserved no rights.

It is unthinkable that any other race, gender or religion would fall over itself to apologise for standing up for its own rights to the extent it hides behind that pathetic catch call ‘children’s rights’ position – a position that has been so abused by government and the secret courts that it is now a euphemism for the state sponsored abuse of children in the family courts.

Forget Jimmy Savile, the biggest child abuse scandal is still going on behind closed doors – the closed doors of secret family courts. Courts that proclaim the ‘best interests of the child’ whilst failing to keep any records on the outcomes for children. So when anyone tells you they are campaigning for ‘children’s rights, treat these words with extreme caution…

10 thoughts on “Matt O’Connor : What Fathers4Justice Stands For”

  1. Always amuses me that the Family Law Courts in Australia look like CIA headquarters. Surveillance cameras galore and carded-only entry are necessary because of the number of pissed-off fathers driven to do something crazy. If they really were making decisions in the best interest of the kids, then why all the security?

  2. @Jack

    Did you notice? Not a word about the criminalisation of male sexuality. The fems can go on setting the sexual agenda as long as MRA “family” issues are settled.

    Yes, true – not a word that DIRECTLY addresses it, however it at least asks about ‘Tackling negative portrayals of men in the media’, which of course is mainly how paedohysteria is fueled and the ‘all men are rapists, perverts, paedos, etc.’ narrative infiltrates society.

    You’re right, though: they either don’t see at all how this is the NUMBER ONE Men’s issue, because they have been so well indoctrinated by the same ridiculous feminist narratives, or more likely: they do know, but are too afraid to dare question it for fear of being lynched; because of the embedded, societal-wide acceptance and belief of the same narrative!

    Thus, maybe that last question was as close as they were prepared (dared) to go with the survey, knowing that actually questioning directly: feminist oppressive laws on male sexuality (questioning the dominant narrative), would likely be construed by the loony, paedohysterical public as endorsing ‘paedophilia’ and as defending paedophiles, groomers, predators, perverts, etc… Thus by including such a question in their survey: they could quite literally, be risking their own personal safety.
    I.e. such a question could well provoke pitch-fork wielding, dumb-as-dog-shit, semi-literate and inbred vigilante paedocrites into quickly forming a lynch-mob and attack, to ‘serve justice to those sickos’ for such heinous [thought] crime…

    They may just be treading carefully in what is effectively a minefield.

  3. Alan, you’re right of course. And this is why I’m in no hurry to see the fathers getting the justice they basically deserve until a consensus is reached to fight for the other issues. (Compare the campaign by potheads to have “their” drug liberalised so that the police can regroup and concentrate on arresting users of so-called hard drugs).

  4. @Jack,
    Yep, I understand. If WE were potheads we would be pushing for the legalization of ALL drugs (which I actually believe would solve an astronomical amount of social problems, health problems and LAW enforcement issues).

    However, this is an MRA blog, so I won’t delve any further into that (EQUAL to feminism in terms of how ridiculous it is) ‘war on drugs’ issue, but the principle for fighting either is much the same:
    If those mRAs want feminism and its devastating ideologies evicted from society it must be attacked in its entirety, not just family and divorce issues, but EVERYTHING.

    With feminists: if you give them an inch, they want and will take a mile and it’s still nowhere near enough for them. So, don’t even give them a MICRON! Give them NOTHING more – they already have far too much now.
    The day the white-knights, manginas, paedocrites, Camerons, Obamas + 1000’s more wake up to that, might be the day when things start to change…

  5. Did you notice? Not a word about the criminalisation of male sexuality. The fems can go on setting the sexual agenda as long as MRA “family” issues are settled.

    well I guess you can say that the men’s rights movement is becoming similarly fragmented, diverse and varied as feminism. Consider: You have feminists pushing for late-term abortions, while femiservatives want to ban abortion altogether. You have liberal feminists who still see the decriminalization of prostitution as a step forward in women’s rights, and you have dried up femihags who hate the fact that men can just get themselves young nubile pussy in exchange for a bit of money. But – they all call themselves feminists.

    I would guess that equally, different men’s rights currents have set themselves different goals and agendas. To some, male sexual rights are most important, while maybe others are focused more on custody rights. That doesn’t mean one group is betraying the ideals of the other.

    Feminism isn’t one monolithic force; men’s rights activists don’t necessarily need to be one either to be effective.

  6. Feminism isn’t one monolithic force; men’s rights activists don’t necessarily need to be one either to be effective.

    @IR Good points, and I tend to agree. There is possibly an important distinction to be made. Feminism involves a deciet in that it calls for ‘equality’ when it is primarily a sexual trade union furthering the sexual value of ordinary women in a free sexual market (according to STU theory).

    Disputes in feminism, despite the fact they may be dressed up differently, tend to be about how best to achieve that primary goal.

    And I wouldn’t even describe the ‘feminist liberal’ call for the de-criminalization of prostitution as even a dispute. Nowhere in the world for the last 20 or so years at least, have these type of feminists even had any sort of relevance. There is no dispute. Sexual trade union feminists now dominate the politics of virtually every nation on Earth, and even (and especially) intergovernmental organsiations such as the UN and the EU and the thousands of influential non-governmental organisations. Well, I guess there’s a couple of liberal pro-prostitution bloggers out there but to call it ‘a dispute’ is a bit far-fetched – certainly no comfort to the men already being jailed under ‘paying for sex’ laws made by the feminists in power and with any influence.

    Men’s Rights (hopefully) is about stopping the disadvantages faced by men in society, and having our sexuality criminalized year by year by feminsts is one of the most fundemantal ways in which that is happening, and thus a primary men’s rights issue. When MRAs deny it, they’re being fraudulent.

    However, I agree with your point in essence. The main goal for the short term at least is to raise awareness in society of the fact that men as a group are disadvanataged and discriminated against in a number of ways. As I’ve said recently, society won’t take anything that they’ve been brainwashed to interpret as ‘pedo rights’ seriously until it can learn to take the notion of ‘men’s rights’ as such seriously. For all their fraudulence and deciet over this issue, we’re just going to have to grit our teeth and work with the father’s righters, even the downright anti-sex ones.

  7. antifeminist:

    Men’s Rights (hopefully) is about stopping the disadvantages faced by men in society, and having our sexuality criminalized year by year by feminsts is one of the most fundemantal ways in which that is happening, and thus a primary men’s rights issue. When MRAs deny it, they’re being fraudulent.

    The problem is in fact that it has been happening piecemeal. In small, almost unnoticeable (at least to the general public) incremental steps that are carefully allowed time to settle and become a part of mainstream public opinion. As we have said here before, middle-aged men who now cry pedophile when somebody fancies their 17-year-old daughter have long forgotten that they themselves used to wank off to 16-year-old bare-bosomed Page 3 Girls when they were 20.

    I wouldn’t say all MRA’s are being fraudulent if they deny these facts; maybe they are just still oblivious – although you’d really have to be blind – to the immense and vast damage that feminists and moral conservatives have been doing the past 20 years to everybody’s sexual freedoms, and haven’t realized that the noose is getting tighter every year. Sadly, it might take drastic and abrupt clampdowns on sexual freedoms for them to wake up and realize what’s going on.

    But as every revolution in history has shown – you can only step on people’s rights and liberties for so long. Eventually there will always be a backlash.

  8. We had an interesting discussion about the fragmented nature of the MRM recently on Fidelbogen’s blog. I pointed out that the state of men in the Anglosphere today is much like that of the French Underground during WW2. The whole opposition to the Nazis were collectively referred to as the ‘Resistance’ or the ‘Underground’ but the actual partisans engaged in the movement had very differing ideas about what was going to replace the Nazis once they fell from power.

    I think it’s similar in the MRM right now. In fact, in France, as the Nazi power began to wane, the disparite groups in the Underground began to coalesce more and more around their own ideologies and cooperate less with one another. Hopefully, this is a sign that feminism is about to fall, too. (Or, conversely, it might be that feminism is just gearing up for another blitzkreig).

  9. Men have got fuck all rights in this fucking country. We are the Jew’s with no say, they are the nazi’s knocking down doors and making sure we are the Jew’s with no say. Arrest, round up the usual suspects, send the Jew to the gas chamber, day in day out smear destroy gas men to death in the media and men’s rights, especially equal access. And the feminazi’s get stronger by the day.

    It’s not all doom and gloom. I hope men get together one day and plan a take-back and takeover, peacefully of course, and keep these politically correct monsters down who cannot see the wood for the tree’s simply because they want to monopolise the family away from sperm donor only father’s and can’t possibly be in the wrong so destroy the man to get him out the way like the Jew who has no say and his only destiny is the methaphorical gas chamber.

Comments are closed.