Showing posts with label Barry WIlliams. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barry WIlliams. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Europe sides with Aussie Chauvenists


Australia, renowned for male chauvinist behavior, racism and all round backward thinking. The intelligence is clearly lacking when they called it "The lucky Country". With three major political parties leaning from moderate to far right - It is no wonder more and more women are fleeing this country. It is only the lucky country, because at the end of the day, there is always a scapegoat paying for it.

When of course there are complaints, the media does a remarkable job at cleaning up after its thugs. One would only have to view articles like these to learn that there is little truth in the tales from down under. Ask any partner of any non white member of the Australian community about the daily racist slurs she or he receives in the public and suddenly the veil lifts.

To consider that male white supremacy is righteous is in fashion for Australia and as it seems, every Aussie is following suit. Dig deeper at the victims of Australian white supremacy and there are many women, mostly mothers who care a lot for their children. They are Australian societies scapegoat. Those many who have tried or succeeded in escaping violence are the "untouchables" of Australian culture. The biggest reason for leaving is for their children. Most are not concerned what happens to them, just their children.

Of course, there are always bad examples of motherhood, but these are trophied as recognition that all mothers are this way; that in a bizarre logic - they are not human, but merely a brand of product on the patriarchal market. To the male dominated judicial system, the family court views mothers as a machine useful for providing children as though they are a commodity. Even the values of equality are distorted to feed the masses of male supremacist, by faking shared parenting. Sharing the parenting before divorce for most Australian men is too much, but if the woman leaves, sharing the parenting is invoked as a means to use the child and chain her to him for life.

This was after all instigated by the same group that invoked censuring the internet. The festival of the Light. Men like Warwick Marsh, Barry Williams and John Abbott, wanted to enforce marriage as a non-negotiable contract. They blamed women for the problems in marriage, but grossly ignored the violence from men. Warwick Marsh himself had a close family member commit a murder-suicide, the ultimate act of possession and obsession. Yet, his interpretation of the event was misappropriated to condemn and punish the women who leave.

John Abbott was an extreme example, but successfully pushed for shared parenting in alliance with the members of the shared parenting council. He believed that women who cheat should be punished by death. A rogue and violent attitude that one would consider reserved only for the underdeveloped world where stoning women is an everyday account.

In contrast, Europe gender divide is far less than Australia. Shared Parenting occurs before divorce and the European Assembly had raised UK's treatment of mothers in the Family Court as abhorrent. In the case of Melinda Stratton however, it appears that Europe has sold out on human rights as they arrested her for taking her child.

The media in Australia has written dozens of articles applauding the pursuit of a mother who stated that she went to such a great length to save her child from being abused. The media painted this business women as mentally ill, yet omitted this diagnosis to originate from the courts hired psych. In the Australian Family court stats, nearly all of the mothers who are cut off from contact are deemed mentally ill. Dig a little deeper into the family court judgments and many abuse cases mostly the mother raising concerns lose contact because they were persistent and challenged the court.

The family court was so abusive during the Howard era that they trophied cases that were deemed to meet the "Parental Alienation Syndrome" criteria, a popular theory amongst the pseudo-psych legal community. It was popular largely because the family court could deliver cheap cases without addressing the abuse, whilst the protective parent was barred from contact and the ability to collect or provide any further evidence of its occurrence and thus providing a false sense of credibility towards family court decisions. The problem is that "Parent Alienation Syndrome" is largely debunked by the scientific community as the Dr who created it also supported pedophilia.

When the Australian was given a ten page letter by Melinda Stratton on her side of the story, they were constrained by the Family Court from publishing her concerns about sexual abuse by Ken Thompson. Yet, the media were not constrained to convey her as "Paranoid" or as an abductor. It would be too much of course, for the family court to convey this mother as a human being or focus on the child's real best interests, rather than its own interests.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Shared Parenting: Isn't it a little dumb?


A hilarious, but provocative article was written about Australian Family Law reform. As they say, "All truth is made in jest". Its called, "Law Reform By The Frozen Chook", a title that surrounds Barry Williams of the Lone Fathers Association who claims that his wife hit him with a frozen chook. It is important to note that in the same breadth Mr William supported homicides committed by men. It highlights how the family law reforms have been made to accommodate myths that have no research to support them. In fact there is no link between the family court and absent fathers unless he has tried to kill the mother or the kid and even in those circumstances, they might get no over-nights or supervised access. To this day, these groups still attribute family violence to not having "shared parenting".

There are no real laws to protect children and parents from family violence in the family law act, but there are punishments for not being able to substantiate the abuse to the judges requirements of course. Considering the "Pub Law" article, it is sobering to learn that the shared parenting bill was established on the foundation of beer absorbed brain cells. It is after all puzzling to contemplate that if the mother does not do everything the ex wants, she is not complying to shared responsibility and must be punished by relinquishment of the time she spends with the children regardless of the quality of the care she may provide.

Now this doesn't sound like sharing at all. It sounds like the ownership of women and children even after the relinquishment of divorce. If it was truly about shared parenting then, both genders would be held accountable for their "shared responsibility" and if a parent was violent, then they are clearly not being a responsible parent and thus such "rights" do need to be relinquished.
But somehow those beer absorbed brain cells decided that even if they don't get the 3 when they try and add 1+1, they believe that if they continue to add it, they will eventually get that answer and every time they get 2 on the calculator, its a "sign" that they are close to finding 3.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

The Shared Parenting Council is bias

Although news coverage on family law is relatively low, but mostly in the favour of fathers. The Shared Parenting Council of Australia claims to represent fathers and mothers. Pay attention to some details and this organisation represents fathers:

    President
    Michael Green QC

    Vice President (1)
    Barry Williams
    [Lone Fathers Association Australia]

    Vice President(2)
    Coral Slattery
    [Family Law Reform Association NSW]

    Vice President (3)
    Greg cairns (Retired)

    Vice President (4)
    Terry Bowker
    [Reliable Parent's Inc]

    Executive Secretary
    Wayne Butler
    Mobile: 0411 850 677

    Federal Director
    Edward Dabrowski
    Mobile: 0409 917 345

    State Director (QLD)
    Peter Marsh

    State Director (NSW)
    Tevor Bock

    State Director (VIC)
    Lindsay Jackel
    [Nuance]

    State Director (SA)
    Vacant

    State Director (WA)
    Joan Hopkins
    Telephone: 08 9474 9552

    State Director (TAS)
    Vacant

    Territory Director (ACT)
    Jim Carter
    [Lone Fathers Association Australia]

    Territory Director (NT)
    TBA

Friday, February 12, 2010

Should the Shared Parenting Law be Changed?

A recent report released by professor Chisholm revealing that a number of children are at risk and consequently recommended changes in the shared parenting law. Mens groups are angered by the recommendation, whilst children's groups champion the notion.
But should the law revolve around mens rights? Are mens rights violated and if so how are they more violated than children's rights or say victims of domestic violence which make up a majority of women?
Professor Chisholm proposed in the report to consider the merit of involvement that the parent had before separation but omitted any reference to mothers and fathers. So why are mens groups claiming that they would lose contact? Where a parent would lose contact in Chisolms recommendations is where there are substantiated findings of family violence. So what do mens groups really want?
According to Kathryn Joyce, in America, mens groups have become frighteningly effective where they have managed to block domestic violence laws. The question remains, how effective will they be in Australia?