Mens Rights Thread

Piliger · 04-09-2012 6:06pm

iptba wrote: »

Ok, sent mine in. I had only got one person who offered to look at it [my draft] but they didn't get to read it in the end because a deadline came up.

I got ambushed by a business deadline on the last day but made contact with someone in the committee back room team and submitted it on Monday in my own name.
I wonder if we, the public, will be informed of how all of this develops. I suspect the big pressure groups will be getting meetings lined up with the minister and his team all through the coming months to make sure they succeed.

iptba · 04-09-2012 6:21pm

Piliger wrote: »

I got ambushed by a business deadline on the last day but made contact with someone in the committee back room team and submitted it on Monday in my own name.
I wonder if we, the public, will be informed of how all of this develops. I suspect the big pressure groups will be getting meetings lined up with the minister and his team all through the coming months to make sure they succeed.

Well done on getting something in (the cat is out of the bag - you were the contact - I thought yours was very good).

I happened to be looking at journal.ie and noticed how many prostitution stories there have been in recent times. A lot of the coverage seems to have come from Ruhama and/or Turn off the Red Light campaign. They're obviously very organised. So I imagine they will be organised with their lobbying too.

Pawwed Rig · 04-09-2012 7:48pm

I got the acknowledgement e-mail today.

TBH guys I think the writing is on the wall and that law will come in. I don't think turnof thebluelight exist as such. I tried to contact them but was returned undelivered so there was no real organised opposition to the changes. Those who shout loudest tend to win in Ireland

iptba · 04-09-2012 7:58pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I got the acknowledgement e-mail today.

TBH guys I think the writing is on the wall and that law will come in. I don't think turnof thebluelight exist as such. I tried to contact them but was returned undelivered so there was no real organised opposition to the changes. Those who shout loudest tend to win in Ireland

Yes, got my acknowledgement also.

Turn off the blue light seemed to exist for a while but then became inactive. You're probably right about the legislation, although there may be a chance if the sex workers come forward and complain about it, particularly if they do it in spoken testimony, that it may change the dynamic.

Anyway, the Swedish Model (which I think is unfair and is based on treating men more harshly than women) is not my main interest in Men's Rights so doubt I'll be doing any more on it.

iptba · 05-09-2012 12:46am

iptba wrote: »

There may be a better thread to post this, but on a quick look I couldn't see one. I'm happy to move it elsewhere (or mods can if they want) but thought I'd post it somewhere:

From Irish Times, Tuesday Sept 4:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0904/1224323573384.html

Another two letters on this today:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0905/1224323611175.html

'Bosses, babies and body hair'

Sir, – In “Bosses, babies and body hair” (Weekend Review, September 1st), women speak, among other things, about men. At least two of them display what seems to be a typical attitude towards men in society today, which, reduced to its basic meaning, says “male bad, female good”.

Speaking about what they consider to be positive aspects of the male, they say “men with more female characteristics . . . should be valued more” and also admire “a man who’s in touch with his female side”.

Why is it that the good in men is so often attributed to their “female side”?

Why can’t women accept that men are a package of good and not-so-good characteristics, without trying to claim the admirable bits for the female of the species? – Yours, etc,
<name and address>

Sir, – Elizabeth Ahern-Flynn (September 4th) was struck by the theme running through Kathy Sheridan’s feature that “women clearly wanted to work and succeed in the workplace, but also felt a duty to be the primary caregiver for their family”.

It is little wonder that this tension still exists in a land where our Constitution – our statement of who we are and want to be as a nation – declares that “the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.”

I entirely agree with Ms Ahern-Flynn’s call for expanded parental leave, which can of course be achieved by ordinary legislation. It would, however, be an important symbolic step if we were to remove the reference to the place of woman in the home from Article 41 of our basic law.

To those who would object that symbolic change means nothing, consider the monumental step that was the removal of the reference to the “special position” of the Catholic Church by the fifth amendment of Bunreacht na hÉireann in the winter of 1972. – Yours, etc,

Original article is here: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0901/1224323453867.html . One can still comment under it if anyone feels so inclined.

Piliger · 05-09-2012 5:52pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Those who shout loudest tend to win in Ireland

No. Those who shout loudest tend to win in EVERY country.

What maters is what we are doing here in this Forum. What matters is that men speak up and talk to each other and start writing letters to newspapers, magazines, government departments etc to express our opinion.s

For the last fifty years there has only been WOMEN's opinions arriving by the sack load every day in those places. It is no wonder they have driven the agenda.

We need to write more - and I don't mean email. It's letters than matter in this game.

The Corinthian · 07-09-2012 3:45pm

Piliger wrote: »

We need to write more - and I don't mean email. It's letters than matter in this game.

I disagree. This is not to say that letter writing does not serve its place or that we should not bother at all, but to think that letter writing in this manner alone will actually change anything would be profoundly naive.

When legislating, requests for comment are typically sent out. This is because they have to actually do this to appear transparent, and possibly also because there may be a legal requirement to do so.

However, this occurs typically after he vast bulk of the policy work is done and those parties involved have finally found a compromise position between them. Actually going back to the legislation in question to change it due to a number of letters (the number or tone is never revealed) being sent in will not result in any serious amendment and typically no amendment at all. It's too much hassle, at the very least.

Instead, you'll get an acknowledgement and when the next draft comes out, your criticisms or suggestions will at best be dismissed, typically with a line like "some respondents felt that..., however it was determined that...".

If you want to affect policy you have to be more aggressive; set yourself (or your organization) up so that it gets invited in participating in such negotiations or lobby these committees before they publish their drafts. Lobbying need not be direct, but also may co-opt constituent (backbench) TD's who can in turn influence them - the automatic 'kick in' period of the cohabitation bill was increased to five years because of their involvement, not because someone responded to any consultation requests.

TD's fear bad publicity. The government fears bad publicity. This is why articles about gender pay gaps are so effective, despite their dubious basis in fact. However being seen to champion something that will get them votes is instead something politicians are on the lookout for. So give them that.

This is not to say that such letters should not be written, however if that is all that is done, it will achieve nothing and in reality simply add credence that the process was somehow 'democratic'.

Piliger · 07-09-2012 4:16pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is not to say that such letters should not be written, however if that is all that is done, it will achieve nothing and in reality simply add credence that the process was somehow 'democratic'.

In my experience letter writing is far more effective. TD's pay huge attention to their in tray of actual letters and this feeds back through the party far more than any other strategy. Also emails are regularly dismissed and forgotten.
TD's want to be reelected and when they they get letters opposing or urging action on specific topics they pay a lot of attention to that - often more than to their party machinations.

The Corinthian · 07-09-2012 4:42pm

Piliger wrote: »

In my experience letter writing is far more effective. TD's pay huge attention to their in tray of actual letters and this feeds back through the party far more than any other strategy.

That was part of my point - write letters to the TD's to have them exert pressure, rather than to these requests for public feedback that are a waste of time.

Piliger · 07-09-2012 5:51pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

That was part of my point - write letters to the TD's to have them exert pressure, rather than to these requests for public feedback that are a waste of time.

Agreed.

Piliger · 07-09-2012 5:52pm

iptba wrote: »

Yes, got my acknowledgement also.

Was it in the form of an email ?

FYI:

I have posted my submission in full over in Legal - New public consultation on prostitution laws. (I can post it here if the Mods agree)

Pawwed Rig · 19-09-2012 4:46pm

What do we think of the wording of the children’s referendum?
It seems to me to be very wishy washy in parts (particularly part 4) and I am disappointed that there is no mention of the right of a child to have a Father and a Mother.

Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution
PROPOSED NEW ARTICLE 42A
Children
1. The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.

2. 1° In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child. 2° Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.

3. Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.

4. 1° Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings -

i brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or
ii concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child,
the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
2° Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.

yawha · 19-09-2012 6:30pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I am disappointed that there is no mention of the right of a child to have a Father and a Mother.

Do you mean this in an anti-homosexual adoption sense, or another one?

Piliger · 19-09-2012 6:35pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I am disappointed that there is no mention of the right of a child to have a Father and a Mother.

And how exactly could you possibly deliver on that right ?

Pawwed Rig · 19-09-2012 6:38pm

yawha wrote: »

Do you mean this in an anti-homosexual adoption sense, or another one?

No I meant it in a mens rights sense.
Not anti homosexual more to give the father the rights to see a child in the case of a divorce/breakup. Maybe phrased it badly.

iptba · 20-09-2012 1:26am

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

No I meant it in a mens rights sense.
Not anti homosexual more to give the father the rights to see a child in the case of a divorce/breakup. Maybe phrased it badly.

Could be a chance to highlight the issue if nothing else. Might get a politician to say the issue needs to be looked at, even if they claim not relevant for this ammendment.

The Corinthian · 20-09-2012 8:57am

yawha wrote: »

Do you mean this in an anti-homosexual adoption sense, or another one?

Gee wizz... maybe it would be in the sense related to the thread topic? Which would oddly include both straight and gay men.

Piliger wrote: »

And how exactly could you possibly deliver on that right ?

True. It's a nice aspiration, but pretty unworkable in practice. You can't force people to adopt an abandoned or orphaned child. Neither can you force parents to be parents, who don't want to be.

Pawwed Rig · 20-09-2012 9:08am

Piliger wrote: »

And how exactly could you possibly deliver on that right ?

Well in the event of a willing father and mother (or Father and Father:D) then giving both parents enforceable rights to raise the child. If it is covered in the constitution then it would have a greater weight of law than the family court

The Corinthian · 20-09-2012 10:00am

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Well in the event of a willing father and mother (or Father and Father:D) then giving both parents enforceable rights to raise the child. If it is covered in the constitution then it would have a greater weight of law than the family court

Nice in theory, but family law in Ireland already fails to enforce rights that are already in place, such as access and guardianship. Affording rights is all very well, but fairly useless if they can't be enforced.

Pawwed Rig · 20-09-2012 10:08am

Agreed but if someone takes a case in the event that their constitutional rights are being infringed I would guess it could be taken more seriously than it is currently. I am not a legal person though.

The Corinthian · 20-09-2012 10:19am

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Agreed but if someone takes a case in the event that their constitutional rights are being infringed I would guess it could be taken more seriously than it is currently.

Agreed, but without enforcement the point is moot.

The classic example is access orders; a father may have a court order stating he may have access to his child(ren), but if the mother chooses to breach this legal order, there's not much that can or will be done.

To begin with the Guards will avoid any involvement, citing it as a 'private manner'.

The father may bring the mother to court for the breech, but a judge is unlikely to do much beyond bluster at her. Fines can be imposed too, but if not paid, there's not much that a judge can - or more correctly will - do.

Personally, I think that actually enforcing the rights that men already have is probably far more useful that introducing new rights that will be ignored.

Pawwed Rig · 20-09-2012 10:29am

Yes but in the event that your Constitutional rights are being breached there would be a case made for claiming against the state for not upholding them. Thereby costing the state huge amounts of cash, thereby motivating them to actually enforce their rulings.

I despair at the legal system in this country. I might start another thread 'Is there anything Ireland does right?'

The Corinthian · 20-09-2012 10:37am

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Yes but in the event that your Constitutional rights are being breached there would be a case made for claiming against the state for not upholding them. Thereby costing the state huge amounts of cash, thereby motivating them to actually enforce their rulings.

Possibly, but if that were the case there would have been such cases taken out by now on numerous such breaches.

I don't know why this has not happened; the cost of such an action, a 'protected' legal/judicial system that makes such an action futile, or whatever.

iptba · 20-09-2012 12:50pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Agreed, but without enforcement the point is moot.

The classic example is access orders; a father may have a court order stating he may have access to his child(ren), but if the mother chooses to breach this legal order, there's not much that can or will be done.

To begin with the Guards will avoid any involvement, citing it as a 'private manner'.

The father may bring the mother to court for the breech, but a judge is unlikely to do much beyond bluster at her. Fines can be imposed too, but if not paid, there's not much that a judge can - or more correctly will - do.

Personally, I think that actually enforcing the rights that men already have is probably far more useful that introducing new rights that will be ignored.

I think this may be due to different ways men and women can be treated if they break the rules/law. If this was the other way around, I think bodies wouldn't be so hesitant to punish the man/force the man to comply.

The Corinthian · 20-09-2012 1:16pm

iptba wrote: »

I think this may be due to different ways men and women can be treated if they break the rules/law. If this was the other way around, I think bodies wouldn't be so hesitant to punish the man/force the man to comply.

In the case of family law, incarceration of fathers who break court orders is not uncommon. Mothers, on the other hand, almost never face the same sanction. This is because a court will see this as causing disruption that would be 'against the child's interests', effectively originating from a legal tradition of avoiding punishment which is centuries old.

All of which is despite the fact that the father may well be the better parent to have primary custody, or even just temporary custody, during such incarceration. But seemingly 'disruption' is considered a greater ill to a child than having contact with one of their parents obstructed or severed.

However, this bias is not limited to family law. A thread some time back here debated how men were more likely to commit crime and be jailed. In it one poster, supporting the thesis that men were fundamentally more criminal, posted a link to a UK report demonstrating that indeed men were more likely to be convicted of crimes.

However, this poster didn't apparently bother to read the report which also went onto point out that women were significantly more likely to be cautioned, rather than arrested and even when convicted were less likely to receive custodial sentences than men, for the same crimes:

The Corinthian wrote: »

First is that men are significantly more likely to commit violent crime (although it should also be noted that men are also significantly more likely to be victims of violent crime, p.7). This is hardly a revelation due to the physical strength that men have in comparison to women - on average. Testosterone also adds to this, both in terms of aggression and risk taking.

The second thing that we see is that women who commit crimes are far less likely to be prosecuted or receive custodial sentences. Overall 49% of women will be cautioned rather than arrested, against 30% of men and in many cases this gap is significantly greater, such as robbery (9% vs 4%), sexual offences (47% vs 18%), violence (65% vs 42%) and theft (56% vs 30%).

Furthermore, once arrested, persons proceeded against for indictable offences per 1,000 estimated resident population, by sex, works out at 14.5 men versus only 2.3 women - which is a huge difference. The report concludes that "as a proportion of all those cautioned/warned and proceeded against, females were more likely than males to receive a caution, irrespective of age group. This was true across all offence types."

Where it comes to custodial sentences the trend continues, with 25% of men against 15% of women sentenced to immediate custody for indictable offences (p.35).

So in short, yes - it is ultimately due to different ways men and women can be treated if they break the rules/law.

iptba · 21-09-2012 12:46am

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

What do we think of the wording of the children’s referendum?
It seems to me to be very wishy washy in parts (particularly part 4) and I am disappointed that there is no mention of the right of a child to have a Father and a Mother.

Here are two letters in Friday's Irish Times, for what they are worth:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0921/1224324230602.html

Sir, – The Catholic Church, enabled by and in collusion with State institutions perpetrated the most hideous crimes against the children of Ireland for decades. The forthcoming referendum is asking the parents of Ireland to give this State more power to remove children from families and place them in State care.

I am a legally separated father of three. My limited experience of Irish family law courts showed an institution which was secretive, sinister and open to all forms of abuse. I felt judges, barristers, solicitors and Government agency employees were acting with impunity, with little to no oversight. We will never know the abuses that are perpetrated against families in these courts due to the in camera nature of the cases. I don’t believe the best interests of children, or anyone for that matter, is served by giving more power to government, its agencies and courts over individuals and families. I will be voting against this referendum. Hard cases make bad law and this legislation is wide open to abuse. I believe parents voting for this referendum are voting against their own interests and rights as parents. – Yours, etc,

<man>

A chara, – Perhaps the one thing missing from the proposed amendment to the Constitution regarding children’s rights is the right for a child to know who both of his or her parents are? – Is mise,

rolly1 · 22-09-2012 1:08am

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

What do we think of the wording of the children’s referendum?
It seems to me to be very wishy washy in parts (particularly part 4) and I am disappointed that there is no mention of the right of a child to have a Father and a Mother.

Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution
PROPOSED NEW ARTICLE 42A
Children
1. The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.

2. 1° In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child. 2° Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.

3. Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.

4. 1° Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings -

i brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or
ii concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child,
the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
2° Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.

I believe the proposed constitutional change is a major stepping stone for breaking the legal link between parents and children.

It will pave the way for the dilution of rights of parents and will mean non-parents achieving equal legal standing with parents.

It will lower the threshold for state intervention in families, when there is no legal evidence to show that the current constitution and legislation is inadequate to protect children.

No true discussion on the rights of children can be had while the state system operates entirely in secret through the In Camera rule.

In effect the state is asking parents to sign a blank check and entrust the best interests of their children to a secret unaccountable judiciary and executive. It is clear that it has been the state itself which has overwhelmingly failed generations of children and continues to do so.

Apart from the goal of weakening/breaking the link between parents and their children this amendment is also a deliberate and damaging smokescreen to detract from huge state system failure. The amendment is being pitched as if this change will sort everything out, when we can see clearly that systems failure is at the root cause of our state failing children.

Piliger · 22-09-2012 1:20pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

What do we think of the wording of the children’s referendum?

Good wording.

It is about time we smashed down the Catholic Church's inspired primacy of the family where parents are effectively assigned unrestricted ownership of their children. It is time we established that society has a deep interest and obligation to it's children that overrides the role of parents where those parents fail to deliver their duty of care to their children.
Too many children have suffered appalling neglect and abuse in this country because of the reticence of the State to step in and rescue those children.
The State needs to be more pro active and more active in intervening in these failed families and also in being able to find good loving homes for those children. There are many loving couples far better able to give those children the love and respect and care that they deserve.

It seems to me to be very wishy washy in parts (particularly part 4) and I am disappointed that there is no mention of the right of a child to have a Father and a Mother.

You cannot give a child a right that you cannot enforce, deliver or even ascertain.

rolly1 · 22-09-2012 2:22pm

Piliger wrote: »

Good wording.

It is about time we smashed down the Catholic Church's inspired primacy of the family where parents are effectively assigned unrestricted ownership of their children. It is time we established that society has a deep interest and obligation to it's children that overrides the role of parents where those parents fail to deliver their duty of care to their children.
Too many children have suffered appalling neglect and abuse in this country because of the reticence of the State to step in and rescue those children.
The State needs to be more pro active and more active in intervening in these failed families and also in being able to find good loving homes for those children. There are many loving couples far better able to give those children the love and respect and care that they deserve.

Cool: give the right to decide the best interests of your child over to an unelected, unaccountable, secret judiciary and executive. I mean what could possibly go wrong?

Don't we all know how transparent, unbiased and fair the family courts are to fathers already; with 50:50 joint and equal custody of children in separation or divorce, with residence orders and house ownership following the same structure and of course we all know how absolutely pro active and strict the state is at enforcing child access orders too.

And then of course we have the tremendously fair Cohabitation legislation which further enhances the rights of fathers and their children with the introduction of palimony.

And just look how much attention the state has lavished on unmarried fathers, granting them automatic guardianship to bring about complete legal equality with unmarried mothers.

Yeah man truly it's about time we isolated children from their parents and gave them the privilege of having a solicitor/social worker/psychologist to represent them in family law cases, cause we all know that parental alienation doesn't exist and the voice of the child must always only be the voice of the child and not the alienating parent.

And of course the state has a pristine track record with the nation's children as witnessed by the Ryan report, the Roscommon case and the 196 child deaths of children in care.

But hey, let's do it for the kids man, love it!

Pawwed Rig · 22-09-2012 3:33pm

Piliger, While I agree with the sentiment of your post I don't think the Irish State is a suitable alternative to bad parenting. In many cases they make the childs situation worse.

At this stage I think the Irish State needs to evaluate whether it is fit for purpose. Ignoring for a moment its appalling record regarding looking after children in it's care, the State is unable to provide a functioning health system, legal system, transport system. Also it has proved itself incapable of regulating it's financial sector and building standards. In fact the only positive in all of government and civil service is it's efficiency at collecting taxes.
I would whole heartedly back your post 100% if we had a functioning country but I don't think we should give the State anymore powers until they can prove they can cope with the powers they have.

Mens Rights Thread

Comments