Category Archives: Family court system

Radical Feminism, the ‘Commentariat’ and Curriculum Transformation in the UK

Ivor Catt, January 2005

The Government has failed to offer families a (divorce) system that works. You have to start by bringing the judges, experts and stakeholders on board to agree what sort of orders the Courts should make. That way, you know what you’re trying to deliver. Then you build a legal system to deliver it. The Government never did its homework. It forgot the foundations.

It’s the same old gerry-building: “Anything goes”, Theresa May, Shadow Minister for the Family, said at the Conservative Party Conference, 2004.

Theresa May is wrong. She does not know that the attack on the traditional family has been built over many years after extensive homework. The attack is spearheaded by a large number of activists in the Cabinet, strongly supported by the Prime Minister’s wife Cherie Blair, inconsistently, because she is a staunch Catholic. In a crucial vote two years ago, it was reported that when the Cabinet was split 50/50, her husband laid his casting vote against the family.

Most of the reasons for and strategy for the attack on the family can be read in radical feminist literature, much of it published by members of the Cabinet, by their co-authors, and by Judge Cherie Blair. Some of it is readily available, but not understood by journalists.

Our sex equality envoy in Baghdad.
The government has sent a “gender equality” officer to Baghdad to help emancipate Iraqui women, writes Maurice Chittenden from the (Sunday) Times. Patricia Hewitt, the trade and industry secretary and minister for women, has seconded an expert from her equality unit in Whitehall to the new Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) in Iraq (Sunday Times, June 15, 2003, p9.)

This initiative follows the American plan to put an American female general in charge of Baghdad. A year later, nearly all the young American and British soldiers dying in Fallujah and elsewhere fighting to give equality to Iraqui women are male. Do our objectives in Iraq include encouraging Iraquis to appoint female mullahs, in line with our female Bishops in England and the USA?

On page vii in the forward to her 1993 book The Century Gap. 20th Century Man. 21st Century Woman., Cabinet Minister Harriet Harman wrote;

“Over the past twenty years Patricia Hewitt, Anna Coote and I have developed our ideas together.”

Both Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt are members of Tony Blair’s Cabinet, the small executive committee which governs Britain. On page 58, Harman writes;

“ …. Husband(s) …. must exercise within their homes the rules of common courtesy and respect which they practice at work.”

In 1982, in the middle of those twenty years, Anna Coote (1, 2) joined with lesbian Beatrix Campbell to publish their book “Sweet Freedom”. They wrote;

“Feminists have had to contend with some powerful myths. One is that sex is a purely natural phenomenon and therefore apolitical …. Another is that the natural expression of sexuality is what we know as heterosexuality. A third is that a woman’s sense of her own sexuality is natural, rather than something that has been constructed by social and economic factors. …. (p212) Conventional heterosexual practice – that bizarre mixture of myth and coercion – is defended more vigorously than any other precept on which our society is supposed to be founded. (p213)

Allegation that Domestic Violence inheres in the conventional family, and is always perpetuated by men, is the counterpoint to the belief that copulation is an unnatural social invention imposed by patriarchy on naïve and disempowered women. In Coote’s book we read;

“ …. Men regularly beat up women in the privacy of their homes …. The public had to face the fact that domestic violence was widespread and often severe. …. (p40) wife-battering is not the practice of a deviant few, but something which can emerge in the ‘normal’ course of marital relations. (p.41)”

Thus, the current campaign to drive fathers out of the family is to protect women from both violence and from copulation imposed on them by brainwashing and coercion.

Admittedly, I have not found a direct link with the High Priest of Radical Feminism, Catharine A MacKinnon, who helped to draft Canadian and also American laws. In her seminal book, “Towards a Feminist Theory of the State” (Harvard University Press, 1989, 1, 2), she writes;

“…. Rape, which by a conservative definition happens to almost half of all women at least once in their lives …. Over one-third of all women are sexually molested by older and trusted male family or authority figures …. (p142) About one third of all men say they would rape a woman if they knew they would not get caught. (p145), …. most women are raped by men they know …. (p146), a reality …. Women’s sex-based destitution and enforced dependency and permanent relegation to disrespected and starvation-level work …. The pervasive rape and attempted rape about which nothing is done, the systematic battery of women in homes, and prostitution – the fundamental condition of women ….(p242)”.

The first sixty pages of MacKinnon’s book are entitled “Feminism and Marxism”.

The important thing is not to decide on the truth of these assertions, but rather to think through what legislation and society such people would try to create.

The idea that women are oppressed, primarily by living within the married family, is at the heart of the dogma of what is now called the “Commentariat”, those who write and talk within the very narrow range of opinion that is allowed in the “free” media and politics in the UK.

Protest against it is what led the voting majority in the USA to re-elect a politician, President Bush, who showed recognition that western society is being dismantled at its core, the institution of marriage. Had he not done so, a rapidly escalating pro-family Fascist Party might have grown in the USA, as it is likely to do in Britain. Britain is vulnerable because libertarian and homosexual leadership blights the natural party of the Family, the Conservatives. It is noteworthy that in the confusion following Bush’s re-election, the Commentariat slipped into admitting that the voter linked Gay Marriage with the attack on the Family, a link they were successful in suppressing until now, although it would obviously influence voting.

The backlash against the political and media hegemony of a libertarian, intolerant, anti-family censoring Commentariat will be too late to save education from disaster. This can be seen by doing a “Google” search for “Curriculum Transformation”, which is by now very heavily funded. Primarily created and financed by a Radical Feminist-led Ford Foundation, “Curriculum Transformation” permeates academia in the USA. The content of every university syllabus is being replaced by radfem dogma. Study of “Curriculum Transformation” is very helpful if we want to study the roots of radical feminism, which controls the leadership of western societies, but does not control the voters, who will topple that leadership at some time in the future.

Erin Pizzey insists, and Catharine A MacKinnon seems to admit, that Radical Feminism is Marxist. Except for the original idea that normal copulation is unnatural, Radical Feminism is syncretic, stealing ideas from wherever it can. All that has been done with Marxism was to replace “Capitalism” with “Patriarchy”. On the other hand, there are strong indications that in Russia in the 1920s, Feminism was indistinguishable from Marxism.

(Britain and the USA are no longer democratic, but are controlled by tiny groups of extremist women. Democracy having been subverted, can it recovered?) The race is on to exploit outraged reaction between moderate Bush-style recapture for democracy, and a Fascist takeover when the “silent majority’ finally flexes its muscles. Continuing radfem censorship means that the choice between them will not be decided rationally by discussion and debate. Free discussion will be prevented by the libertarian Commentariat until well after the transfer of power.

Other reading on this subject:

Ivor Catt Bar


On the accountability of the secret family court system

“The evaluation strategy for Sure Start local programmes is two-fold – a comprehensive long term, wide ranging national evaluation (which will be completed in July 2008), and evaluations of particular programmes to look at shorter term outcomes for each individual community.”

The above is from the attachment in Whiston’s email to me; from a document produced by Hodge’s “Sure Start” controlling team and forwarded to me by Robert Whiston. Whenever Robert W, or Coe or others talk to their MPS, or are in committee with government – LCD or CAFCASS – they should cite this from Sure Start, and say that there is no reason for it having been avoided all these years by the Family Court System and by CAFCASS. Since Sure Start institutionalises accountability in this way, there is no reason why Family Court judges etc. should not be accountable by the same methods; statistical analysis of the later comparitive death rate etc. of children of divorce who pass through the hands of each judge. Also statistical analysis of outcome (teenage pregnancy, truanting etc.) for children subjected to parentectomy compared with those where contact orders are enforced. Children are the central element in the activity of both Sure Start and the Family Courts. If too high a percentage of the children who pass through the tender hands of Judge Munby later die, or become teenage pregnant, then Judge Munby might even get himself another job without being pushed. Once judges suspected that outcome was statistically significantly worse when they allowed a child to continue to have contact with its divorced father, they would cut off fathers in order to protect their own jobs as judges. As in Surestart, accountability is an accepted feature of virtually every other kind of employment, but not included in any of the roles in our secret family court system.

Ivor Catt 18nov03

UK Fathers – Working Together

Ivor Catt Bar

Family courts’ inroads into questions of criminal domestic violence

Originally published on

We find that excluded fathers get muddled over various aspects of the family courts. I have a new point to make here.

More hangs on the issue of whether a criminal offence has been committed when it comes to allegations of domestic violence than in all other cases of criminal allegations, because in these other cases, the future of children is not directly involved. It follows that it is more important, not less, for the correct verdict to be made.

The English system is based on jury trial in open court by the defendant’s peers. It follows that anyone who colludes in supporting the family courts’ inroads into questions of criminal domestic violence would not be able to explain why they supported the jury trial in any criminal case. They have to agree that they oppose jury trials in all cases. If, however, they are in favour of jury trials, they surely must demand that a jury be involved in open court before recourse is made to a Child Contact Centre.

Ivor Catt 20feb03
Ivor Catt Bar

Child Contact Centres – On mushrooming bureaucracies around divorce

Originally published on

This muddled writing about Child Contact Centres points to underlying misunderstanding.

I divorced my wife. When I took this action, I did not introduce third parties between me and my children. It is most important for excluded fathers to grasp this point. The State and its lackeys- lawyers and so on – have a right to intervene in the matter of my divorcing my wife. Like marriage, divorce is a public matter in which the state has an interest, because it may result in spouse or children becoming a burden on the state.

However, intervention by the state between me and my children was another matter. When a judge suggested that I go to a “Contact Centre” and my children do the same, he was acting totally outside his proper powers, which were to do with the initial contract of marriage and the current breaching of that contract.

The state’s interest in the marriage contract arises because children may result from that union, leading to parent or child becoming a burden on the state.

[It has never been alleged that the State is better at parenting than is a parent, so the State does not intervene between parent and child.]

Similarly, during divorce, the state has a right to have concern about provision for the children and for a parent of the marriage. However, putting parent and child into a special location with supervision has nothing to do with the state’s interests. In no way does a parent provide for a child by confronting it under supervision.

[Confronting a child under supervision apes providing for a child in the same was as a film about the war apes the war. It is not the same thing.]

This theatrical game has been added on without any legal justification by various bureaucracies intent on exploiting the situation to make money.

Baskerville (see my website) investigates the enormous financial gain from the kind of activity which is mushrooming around divorce. It is most important that excluded fathers be not tricked into supporting such attacks on parent and child by money-hungry bureaucracies and vicious radfems.

Ivor Catt 20feb03
Ivor Catt Bar

The Two Cultures – Fathers being stigmatised by the family court system as threats to their children

The Two Cultures.

An important synthesis arose from discussion with E on 23dec98.

We begin with the all-important decision as to whether the nest-building urge inheres in the nature of men, or else, as Amneus tends to assert, it is culturally constructed. In his book The Garbage Generation, pub. Primrose 1990, he argues that the weak link in the traditional family is to the father, and that it has to be culturally maintained. For Amneus, matriarchy, where the man has no role in the family, is pre-civilization. The key feature of civilization is that the man is locked into the family. This unleashes the great engine of wealth creation. The married man’s income is 70% more than that of the single man, the single woman and the married woman, all of whom earn the same amount. It is the inculcation of the massive wealth creation of the married father that causes economic takeoff into the much higher standard of living that distinguishes civilization.

Those who have experience of our secret family courts know that a new culture is being nurtured at great expense to the taxpayer. Under this culture, the greatest threat to a child is its own father, who wants access to it in order to sexually molest it and to batter it. A man who is drawn into our family courts experiences deep culture shock. The careful inculcation of the idea that his future lies in marrying, working and providing for and caring for his children is contradicted by a new cultural norm. This new norm asserts that married men usually batter their wives and sexually molest their children.

The original inculcation is however relied on by the courts, which assure themselves that whatever barriers they put between father and child, he will struggle to surmount them in order to fulfil his learned duty under the earlier culture. This contradictory situation survives because of the secrecy of the courts and the censorship of their activities. However, a slow fuse has been lit. The message is leaking out, that our culture now regards a father as a threat to his children, and that his only positive aspect is his cheque book. This is why the marriage rate has collapsed, the remarriage rate has collapsed, and the birthrate has collapsed.

My loyalty is to the present crop of young men, who must be warned about the danger they are in.

Ivor Catt 31jan99
Ivor Catt Bar

(1) Thoughts :: All that blusters is not power

By Ivor Catt

Until fathers are willing to damage their children as much as mothers and our courts routinely do, our children will continue to suffer.
All that blusters is not power.
He who enters the court embarks on the slippery slope to oblivion.
Just because they wear whigs, they think they can break the law.
A father who builds up assets aims a knife at the heart of his family.

“….The increase in the chances of partnerships and marriages ending as lone parenthood means commitment is more likely to be withheld across the board from the start in all families of married couples ….., not just in lone-parent situations that already exist.”

– Norman Dennis, Rising Crime and the Dismembered Family, pub. I.E.A. 1993, (0171 799 2137)

Only an irresponsible father develops close emotional ties with his child.
Goebbels would agree that regularly intoning of the Big Lie; “The interests of the children come first” would camouflage indifference to the interests of the children. Only the callous could habitually, wilfully, impose parentectomy.

Connected readings:

Ivor Catt
121 Westfields
St. Albans AL3 4JR

E-mail: ivorcatt @ electromagnetism . demon . co . uk

Ivor Catt feb98

Ivor Catt Bar

From Law, to Mercy, to Power – an unseen fall from grace

By Ivor Catt


In his indomitable and utterly distinctive manner Ivor Catt here reveals some hard truths and itemises a sequence of events none of us have noticed. If anything, he shows us why we are the victims of our own generosity and liberalism and why we never stop to ponder why it is considered generous and the ultimate price we must pay for law adopting a human face and the power that it then gives others.

Robert Whiston, FRSA

The quality of mercy is not strain’d;
It droppeth as the gentle rain of heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthroned in the heart of kings,
It is an attribute of God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this –
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation; we do pray for mercy,
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.
(Source: Portia, Merchant of Venice)

Portia’s Speech is an ideal metaphor for the gathering crisis in English law. Denning’s revolution was to introduce the precepts enshrined in Portia’s speech. Denning was ideologically opposed to the rule of law, and replaced it by a moral code which he assumed to exist and to be comprehensive. His own moral code was low church Anglican. In practice, it had to be invented and extended on the hoof by judges and enforced by judges. Our legal system was the amalgamation of the King’s Courts, the Court of Chancery, and the Ecclesiastical Courts. Denning shifted the courts back to their other two, submerged traditions, Chancery and, even more so, the Ecclesiastical Courts. These had never been shut down, merely ‘merged ‘ into, and supposedly pre-empted by, the King’s Courts. This was the weakness in our system that Denning, although not expert in, or interested in, jurisprudence, unwittingly exploited via their surviving rump, Equity.

Since the judges’ Masonic moral code was not comprehensive, the judges looked to Public Opinion for guidance. This shift was marked by Lord Chief Justice Taylor saying:

“The Law responds to Public Opinion.”

The public was enthusiastic, but the older Professors of Jurisprudence had been horrified, and had said so. Dr. John Morris of Magdalen College, Oxford, wrote an article entitled ‘Palm Tree Justice in the Court of Appeal’ published in the Law Quarterly Review. He wrote:

By departing from the established rules of law the Court of Appeal seems to have usurped the functions of the legislature. …. it will not be sufficient just to re-write the chapter on gifts to children in the text-books on wills. The text-books themselves will have to be scrapped and construction reduced to the level of guesswork. It is submitted that the rules of law binding on the court cannot be evaded merely by calling them technical.

The reality was that Public Opinion had replaced the law.

Thatcher would probably assert that Public Opinion does not exist. Anyway, to fill the void, judges were forced to mistake pressure groups for Public Opinion. This is the reason for the massive propaganda in our media for novel moral codes, which were vying, through the media, for control of our courts.

The realisation that in future, decisions in legal actions would be decided in the media, and merely ratified by our courts, came only gradually. ‘The media’ meant, of course, those pressure groups which controlled the media; its owners, and much more importantly, the most vocal pressure groups. This is why the ideological need to massage facts and statistics, and even more, to ignore and even suppress facts, is so much more prevalent in our media than it used to be. It is not only government statistics that have been manipulated in order to create a more pliable ‘Public Opinion’ to be obeyed by the judges.

However, the loss of a legal basis for court decisions and their replacement by media decisions was unstable. Another motivation for decisions was inexorably drawn into the situation; decision making based on naked power. The ‘Court of Morals’ which, thanks to Denning, had replaced our Courts of Law, now had no defence against the exercise of naked Power, which it proceeded to ratify.

Examples are;

“A judge was entitled to dismiss a father’s contact application …. following threats by the child’s stepfather that if proceedings continued he would reject the child and the mother.” –
Kate O’Hanlon, Barrister, Law Report, The Independent, 25 June 1997, p17.

“…. contact orders …. are in practice unenforceable, and where such an order is flouted for no good reason the parent seeking contact has no remedy. …. The father seeking contact is powerless if the mother refuses to release the child in compliance with an order. …. Parents seeking legitimate contact enforcement, and the courts they resort to, are engaged in a charade.” – Jasmine Salisbury, a magistrate serving on the family panel, The Independent, 12 Jan 1994.

Thus, we have reverted to that period in our history before legal controls were instituted. Historically, Denning’s usurpation of law by morals was only interim. The underlying factor was the destruction of the law, leading inevitably to an era of lawlessness, or rule by power, which we are now in. In this new era, the court’s only function is to validate, or encode, the facts of power.

In the case of the family courts, the rule of power reached its apotheosis in the recent case of “E”. Previous to the court hearing, he bid farewell to his children, telling them that if the court order were not made to his prescription, he would never have any contact with them. Further, he would never earn money on the white economy, and he would never again provide money or other support of any kind for them.

Counsel for the other side, hearing of this, wrongly deduced that they had a trump card, showing the father’s indifference and uncaring nature. They informed the judge. The judge capitulated, and made out the order over residence (=custody of the children) prescribed by the father.

The new regime in the family courts is as follows. Any man who has unwisely built up large assets, loses all his assets and any contact with his children. The mother and children are then maintained over the next ten to fifteen years out of his expropriated assets.

However, that only applies to some ten per cent of divorcing fathers. It has been calculated more than once that the cost of a divorce is £160,000. If the father’s total assets are as much or more, well and good. He can be ejected and robbed. Further extortion via the C.S.A. will be a bonus.

Now consider the other ninety per cent of fathers. Such a father can adopt the strategy of Retreat. The total equity in his home is perhaps £25,000. Provided he announces in advance of the divorce hearing that he retreats, that the cupboard will be bare unless he has his way, the judge is on notice that a court order which expropriates the father (and virtually all court orders do), will cost the state some £130,000 in direct cost. Incidentally, it will also damage the children, although our courts are more or less totally indifferent to the plight of the children of divorce. ‘Court welfare officers’ have minimal training in probation matters, not in family matters, and are subjected to an extremely destructive ideology during this short, irrelevant training.

The mantra; “The interests of the children come first,” is merely intoned to justify secrecy, so that our courts can ignore our children’s interests without the glare of publicity.

Before the first divorce hearing, the divorcing father, plus all of his relatives that he can assemble, will hold a farewell party for his children. (Should the children be unavailable, the party will be held in their absence, and they will be informed by recorded delivery letter.) He will tell them that should the judge make a single residence order in favour of their mother, he will never again earn salary. Further, both he and all his relatives will cease all contact with them, and all financial support. He and the relatives will then give to the children their final, farewell presents. The event, and what happened, will be reported to the judge, and entered into the court file, in the form of signed letters by each relative, and a signed statement by the father. The only situation when their joint decision to retreat will be rescinded, will be if future legislation enables the mother to ask the court to permanently disqualify itself from further involvement in the family.

One great advantage of Retreat is that, since the facts of the case have no bearing on the outcome, there is no need for a court hearing. This immediately represents a great saving for the state’s in court costs and in legal aid. Since, before the judge capitulated in the 1997 landmark case of E, the judge had threatened to fine E’s solicitor, it is important that the father should not have any legal representation. Also, any verbal submissions may confuse the judge, and be falsifiable by an embattled legal ‘system’. By far the safest course is for the father to submit this documentation, and his prescribed Court Order, to the judge, and remain silent; possibly not even attend. (The facts never did have a bearing, but the realisation that the children lost all contact with the father was camouflaged by the issuing of worthless contact orders which would not be enforced. Also, the C.S.A. extortion would arrive much later in time, so that the judge was never confronted with the implications of his behaviour, and would not know that the father would never earn money again on the white economy, as happened in my case, that of R. G., and so many others).

Since the courts have invented the concept of a father kidnapping his children, but deny the concept of a mother kidnapping her children, the court order prescribed by the father using the Retreat strategy requires at least parity of status to the father in the court order. Thus, shared residence, or sole residence with the father, must be prescribed in the court order, to prevent the children from being cut off from their father. The possibility of the intrusion of the concept of kidnap by the father has to be excluded from the start.

Similarly, the financial division will be as prescribed by the father.

The key to this strategy is that the sole source of the necessary wealth to keep the children from being a charge on the state is the future earnings of the father. What fraction of the G.N.P. is lost if all divorced men or half of divorced men quit the labour force? Here we have to do further research.

The best we have at present is Gilder in the U.S.A. in 1986 (Men and marriage);

“Single men currently have median incomes less than 10% higher than those of single women….. Married men, however, earn some 70% more than singles of either sex.”

The key point is to determine to what extent the motivation of the married man to provide makes him the chief engine of wealth creation. However, that is a detail, and will not delay the use of the Retreat strategy by fathers who have the courage to fight for their children.

Ivor Catt 29oct97

Ivor Catt Bar