Category Archives: Marxism

Radfem/DV/parentectomy

Ivor Catt, 1 June 2011

Radfem empowerment
Radical Feminism is not about equality. It is about Power. Just look at their language; Empowerment, Patriarchy, Assertiveness Training. A child should be the chattel of its mother. In the same way as Marx wrongly thought that the central driving force in society is class, so radical feminists believe the central driving force in the family is power, rather than cooperation. There is a link, because generally Marxist Radical Feminists identify two new classes, men and women. The definition of Domestic Violence now includes normal parenting, particularly by a father.

Ivor Catt, 1 June 2011
Ivor Catt BarAustralian Federal MP George Christensen (Liberals) slams ideologically driven Family Violence Legislation passed the lower house by just one vote:

“I suspect that there is a strong feminist ideology driving these amendments. It is feminist ideology that has created this malicious code to rob men of their rights to be fathers. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to rob children of their right to have a father in their lives. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to create the illusion of acting to stop family violence.”

I suggest that he speaks for mainstream Australia.

Extended Federal Australian Parliament Hansard quote from the parliamentary debate on the Australian Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011:

Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (12:18): In addressing the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011, I have come to understand how the citizens of Troy must have felt when they were greeted with the gift of a giant wooden horse, because this bill is not what it appears. It is a Trojan horse. Just like the giant wooden horse, full of Greek warriors, in Greek legend and like an insidious computer virus, full of malicious code, this Trojan bill is loaded with consequences that will undermine some of the most basic human rights for both parents and children, and particularly fathers.

Family law is a very difficult area to legislate. There is no escaping the fact that every family is different. To create legislation that caters to all circumstances is an unlikely quest. In most circumstances, there are no winners in family law. Family breakdowns are messy. They are hurtful. They are spiteful. They are emotional, irrational and painful. The holy grail of relationship breakdowns, the amicable divorce, is rarer than a kept Labor promise.

It is in this emotionally charged atmosphere that mothers and fathers interact and children are bystanders, often witnessing behaviour by their parents at their very worst. Make no mistake: I do not object to the face-value intentions of some of the amendments in this bill. We cannot question the need to hold a child’s safety in the highest regard when it comes to custody arrangements. But we can question why these amendments are being made.

The current act, introduced by the Howard government in 2006, created the ‘twin pillars’ of parenting provisions. These measures recognised two primary considerations for determining the best interests of the child. The twin pillars were: (a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of his or her parents and (b) the need to protect the child from harm or from being exposed to abuse, neglect and/or violence—I repeat: the need to protect the child from harm. Safety concerns for the child are already in the existing legislation. It is one of two primary considerations—considerations that, yes, are given equal weight. But, in addition, the current act specifically states in section 60CG that a court must ensure that a parenting order:
(a) Is consistent with any family violence order; and
(b) Does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.

Protection is already provided for in the act.

What this amendment proposes to do is to take a George Orwell approach to ranking considerations. When Orwell’s animals in his classic novel Animal Farm draft their legislation on the barn wall, they affirm that ‘All animals are equal’. The pigs then make an amendment: ‘But some animals are more equal than others’. The pigs, of course, had an ulterior motive and I fear that there is one at play here as well. What these amendments are saying is, ‘Yes, the two considerations are primary, but one is more primary than the other.’ What the bill does in reality is to retain child safety as a primary concern while relegating the child’s parental relationships to a minor concern. It sounds innocent enough, I suppose, but the Trojan horse here is a facade of enhancing child safety. The bill is dressed up as an attempt to protect children, which is a pointless exercise, because child safety is fully ensured in the current act.

What is inside this Trojan horse, the malicious code that will infect society, is an attempt to undermine equal access for both parents. This change would invite the court to ignore the requirement to consider the second pillar—the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.

The Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland is concerned about giving greater weight to the second of the primary considerations. In their submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, they said: ‘Such a provision removes the court’s licence to assess in each individual case the degree of risk, its probability or, in the case of family violence, its context in terms of frequency, intensity and recency in the determination of the weight to be given to such risk or harm.’ This bill would mean that any inference of violence, proven or unproven, would have to be taken into consideration, however vexatious the claims may be. The potential danger of this change is apparent when viewed in conjunction with other changes proposed in this bill.

The broadened definition of ‘family violence’ would mean that a wide range of everyday activities could potentially be construed as violence. The broader definition includes as violence such things as repeated derogatory taunts. Under the proposed definition, much of what happens right here in the parliament would be construed as violence. Also included as violence is this little nugget: ‘preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family, friends, or culture.’ Under this broad definition, a parent could not prevent a young teenager from spending 20 hours a day talking to friends on Facebook, for fear of being accused of family violence. What happens when a parent acts in a way that a reasonable person would describe as good parenting? What happens when a father says to his 13-year-old daughter, ‘No, you can’t go to Julia’s party because there will be alcohol and no adult supervision’? I will tell you what happens. An upset teenage daughter talks to a vindictive mother, who then claims the daughter is a victim of family violence—and it is their right under this definition. Another child loses the right to have a meaningful relationship with her parent. Under this definition, a parent would be too scared to ground a child as punishment for bad behaviour, for fear of ‘depriving a family member of his or her liberty.’

The sheer magnitude of this definition presents two problems. The most immediate problem is that living an ordinary life can too easily be construed as family violence. Adding fuel to the fire will be the actions of hurt, emotional, and spiteful former partners in stretching the truth. Tripping over the family dog will suddenly become ‘intentionally injuring an animal’. Using a few poorly-chosen words a few times in an argument—which most families have experienced—will constitute family violence as ‘repeated derogatory taunts’. This definition would allow everyday actions to be seized, twisted, exaggerated and used as family violence weapons in the court. What this change does is broaden the definition of family violence so much that the word ‘violence’ loses all real meaning. That would be a tragedy, because it would also water down the perception of family violence.

I believe that violence is violence. Violence is cruel and harmful. It is a serious problem in some families and a serious problem in the wider society. But violence is not ‘grounding’ a child.. It is not protecting your child. Being a good parent is not being a violent parent. There is a simple solution to stop such things being interpreted as family violence. That is the ‘reasonable person’ test. Such a test demands that for an action to be deemed as violence it must be an action that requires a person ‘reasonably to fear’ for their personal safety and wellbeing. This is precisely the meaning and interpretation that this legislation strips out of the act.

Is this bill more than it appears at face value? Is it another Trojan horse? I say it is most certainly a Trojan horse.

On face value, the broadened definition of ‘family violence’ creates the illusion of providing greater protection against family violence. Yes, that is a lovely wooden horse but let’s take a look inside. Maybe not, because inside this Trojan is malicious code that gives one parent an arsenal of weapons to be misused in court to deprive the other parent of their right to be a parent.

Earlier in this debate we heard the Minister for the Status of Women tell this parliament that no-one uses claims of family violence in such a way. I have some very bad news for the minister: it actually does happen. It happens every day; and if she is not aware of it happening then she is gravely out of touch with reality. If the minister does not have any contact with her own constituents, perhaps she could spend a few minutes at her laptop doing some research. Here is the sort of thing that you can find in two minutes: the newspaper headline ‘Ugly feud fought on Facebook’. The article tells about a Family Court hearing late last year. At the end it says:

She had already strung the case out by falsely claiming her ex-husband had been sexually assaulting their children after one judgment went against her. Then she falsely claimed the father’s new wife had been assaulting them. ‘The mother has over the years attempted to manipulate the court system,’ Justice Barry said.

That is just one case that can be found with two minutes of Google research, and yet the minister came into this House and said that making false allegations of family violence and using family violence as a weapon in the courts is a myth. Do some homework, Minister.

The fact that this minister has told a lie to this parliament—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke): The member will withdraw.

Mr CHRISTENSEN: I will withdraw, but I will say that the minister has told an untruth to this parliament. It is clearly not true to say that it is a myth. It is clearly not true to say—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will return to the bill before him.

Mr CHRISTENSEN: I am, because the minister has told this House that it is a myth that family violence is misused by people in the Family Court. The fact is that it is not a myth and you can see that from a bit of research. Abuse of the system is why we have organisations like Lone Fathers, Dads on the Air, Fathers Online, Fathers 4 Equality, Men’s Rights and so on. If we look closely at these groups, there is a common theme. It is a theme that helps explain why this malicious code is being pushed into the act. These are groups set up by fathers.. We can talk all we want about custodial parents and non-custodial parents, but the truth is that most custodial parents are mothers and most non-custodial parents are fathers.

There are no winners in family law. All parents in family law become losers one way or the other, but some who are bigger losers than others. The current act helped to bring some equality to family law. It created the two pillars, one of which recognised the benefits to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents. These amendments are a backward step. They will strip fathers of their right to be fathers. These amendments will allow abuse of the system that will create another generation of stolen children.

I do not know where the government obtains feedback on the practicalities of family law and family law disputes, but I get my feedback from constituents. I talk to real people who are affected by real situations. I have conversations with fathers who are getting the roughest end of the pineapple. They are grieving fathers who have lost children through the courts. They are devastated and frustrated. They are good men who love their children and want to maintain a relationship with their own flesh and blood—something that should be a basic right.

Some of these men are on the edge. They are driven insane by the lack of justice in the system. They are left in the wilderness, robbed of basic rights and family and, with no support from our legal system, these fathers are driven to despair, driven to the brink of insanity. And if the minister wants to continue her research, she might discover what happens when fathers are placed in a hopeless situation where justice is lost through abuse of the system—which she claims is a myth. When fathers are driven to insanity, they do insane things. I can, in no way, condone the actions of men who, in the face of losing everything, choose to take everything. They do take their own lives and, very sadly, sometimes in the insanity that they are engulfed in, they take the lives of their children. I note that this is not purely a male response, given that there are numerous examples, including some recent cases, of non-custodial mothers doing the same thing.

Family violence is a terrible thing, but so are the actions of fathers driven to the brink. These amendments will do nothing to stop family violence—we already have good measures in place—but they will drive more fathers to the brink. If these amendments drive fathers to the brink, we should be asking who is at the wheel. Is the Minister for the Status of Women at the wheel? Is the Labor-Greens government at the wheel?

I suspect that there is a strong feminist ideology driving these amendments. It is feminist ideology that has created this malicious code to rob men of their rights to be fathers. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to rob children of their right to have a father in their lives. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to create the illusion of acting to stop family violence.

I note that included with these changes is one that repeals the ‘friendly parent’ provisions from the additional considerations for determining a parenting order. The friendly parent provision encourages amicable behaviour among parents. It fosters friendly relationships with all parties. Most importantly, the friendly parent provision assists a court to meet the first pillar of parenting provisions—the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of its parents. This provision has helped more fathers maintain meaningful relationships with their children and, at the same time, it has discouraged parents from abusing the system.

But justice and maintenance of rights for fathers is an affront to this feminist ideology from this government. What a clever way to rob men and rob fathers of their rights! Surely no-one would vote against amendments aimed at protecting children and preventing family violence. But that is not what these amendments are really about. There is already protection in the current at. The fact is that these amendments actually trivialise what is a very serious matter—that being family violence. The broadened definition of ‘family violence’ waters down the meaning of violence and will, in effect, make family violence more acceptable—precisely the opposite of the purported aim of these amendments. These amendments should be seen for what they are. They are a Trojan horse, full of malicious code designed to deprive fathers of their rights. The best thing we can do to protect the safety of children and to prevent family violence is to leave this act as it is. (Time expired)

Ivor Catt BarIvor Catt, 2 June 2011.

There are a number of little known problems confronting attempts to reform the situation.

Two problems stand out. They relate to the incompetence of excluded fathers when they try to encourage reform.

More than a decade ago I pointed out that nowhere in UK law, European Law or United Nations law or declaration is a child’s right of access to its parent enshrined. Canadian Senator Anne C Cools pointed out that the same situation prevailed in Canada. Thus, excluded father try to press judges to enforced a law which does not exist. Excluded fathers remain totally indifferent when this is pointed out to them, and are not interested in contributing to effort establish such a right for children in law or in the UN Declaration. Under the United Nations Charter, Saudi Arabia is perfectly entitled to confiscate a child from its mother.

Similarly, there is no right for a parent to access its child. Again, indifference from excluded fathers.

“ …. …. it became established that children have the right to both of their parents and that the King will be the protector of that right. She then recounted a trail of decisions during which that premise became modified repeatedly until it came to mean today that children are the property of, and an adjunct to, their mothers, …. …. “

No excluded father is interested in this matter.

Fathers refuse to consider “The Retreat Strategy”. The extreme case was Matt O’Connor, founder of F4J, who said he had benefited from the strategy but never told any of his members about it.

All the four fathers who used it won their cases. All other fathers refuse to discuss it or use it.

Advertisements

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