June 30, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Sunday Life

Judge for yourselves

Sunday, June 29, 2008

By Stephen Gordon

As Black Widow Julie McGinley launches a media charm offensive to protest her ‘innocence’ over husband Gerry’s murder, Sunday Life exposes her pathetic lies and gives you THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

Ulster’s most notorious femme fatale Julie McGinley has launched a charm offensive in a bid to get off with the murder of her husband, Gerry….(Full Story)

Posted in Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

June 30, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Newt Gingrich offers common sense solution to energy crisis. Watch his video.

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

June 30, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

1. The Canadian Soviet Socialist Republic

a brief history

By Peter O’Donnell

freedominion.com; 2008 06 26

Most revolutions are declared, fought, won and then consolidated. How long they last depends on how they evolve, or how much repression they can bring to bear.

But the Canadian revolution of 1968 was not declared, only fully visible in retrospect, and has not entirely replaced the ancient regime. This makes it the most unusual revolution in history. Even today, fewer than ten per cent of the people of Canada understand that a revolution has taken place, although perhaps half of them accept most or all of its principles.

As a result, Canada is a nation governed alternately by representatives of the revolution and the ancient regime, and the gulf between them continues to widen. Rather than being in dialogue, they operate along separate channels, without much interaction, just a mutual fear and loathing….(Full Story)

2. Remembering what we are, and what we can be

David Warren, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Sunday, June 29, 2008

Thinking back on the columns I’ve written for Dominion Day, over the years, I am struck by a tone almost of lamentation. “My” Canada — she of whose history I remain proud, from Cabot and Champlain through to childhood memory – the Canada for which my father and his father sailed off to Europe — is not in question here. Little symbols of that Canada still wash up in the flea markets, and I have a relic of it on the table as I write, forming a still life with the laptop, ashtray, and big mug of tea….

In my lifetime I have seen the “re-branding” of my country, and with it, inevitably, the rewriting of our history to accommodate many lies. The project began officially with Lester Pearson’s new flag, in 1964 — that ad-agency “red maple,” doubling as the emblem of the Liberal Party. Under Trudeau we saw this red maple used as a kind of rubber to erase the old heraldry, and almost every other symbol of Crown-in-Parliament followed into disuse. The proud word, “Dominion,” was among the noble artifacts put out with the trash in annus horribilis, 1982….(Full Story)

_______________
Note: 1982 was the year in which Canada acquired a home-grown, politically-correct constitution that became the basis for transferring legislative powers from elected representatives in the House of Commons to patronage-appointed, activist Supreme Court judges –WHS

Posted in Education, Family, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

June 29, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

rense.com
‘Bad Dog! -
A Political Satire
By Henry Makow PhD
6-24-8

A new session of the Seventeenth District Human Rights Tribunal of the Feminist Soviet of Canada is set to begin. Ms. Rutherford-Armstrong is the Prosecutor. The Judge is Madam Chegundi Tsunami, a woman of color. The Defendant is Henry Makow of Winnipeg, white male….(Full Story)

Posted in Education, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

June 29, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Note: for those who don’t know German, the post script to the response to the following message contains a couple of quotes that will be of interest to them. –WHS

Thomas Sochart wrote:

www.tvinfo.de/exe.php3?target=news_detail.inc&newsID=715887&eigenenews=0

*Albanien: Schwurjungfrauen entsagtem dem Sex und übernahmen die Rolle des Mannes*
(29.06.2008 11:50)

In Albanien hatten die Frauen traditionell keinen Wert und es wurden [sic] zwischen ihnen und Tieren kein Unterschied gemacht. Die Frau war für die Kinder und die Wohnung zuständig. Ein Mann war zwölf Ochsen wert, eine Frau lediglich sechs. Nur Jungfrauen kosteten soviel wie ein Mann.

Zu jener Zeit konnten Frauen, wenn ihr Vater tot war, in die Rolle des Familienoberhauptes schlüpfen. Dafür mussten diese “Schwurjungfrauen” dem Sex, der Heirat und Kindern entsagen. Sie kleideten sich ab diesem Moment männlich und galten auch als Mann.

Heutzutage leben in Albanien nur noch rund 40 solcher Frauen. Sie sind wohl die letzten “Schwurjungfrauen”, den [sic] mittlerweile hat sich auch in diesem Land die Gleichberechtigung durchgesetzt. Im Zeitalter des Internets wollen die Mädchen heute Mädchen bleiben.

“In Albanien hatten die Frauen traditionell keinen Wert und es wurden [sic] zwischen ihnen und Tieren kein Unterschied gemacht. Die Frau war für die Kinder und die Wohnung zuständig. Ein Mann war zwölf Ochsen wert, eine Frau lediglich sechs. Nur Jungfrauen kosteten soviel wie ein Mann.”

Das ist ein typisches Beispiel feministischer Propaganda.

Der erste Satz in dem Absatz behauptet dass die albanischen Fauen traditionell keinen Wert hatten und dass zwischen ihnen and Tieren kein Unterschied gemacht wurde.

Der zweite Satz erklaert die Aufgaben einer albanischen Frau, obwohl dass mit Bezug auf den ersten Satz sinnlos ist, da kein Tier fuer Kinder und die Wohnung zustaendig sein kann. In dem Zusammenhang enthaelt der ganze angefuehrte Text keine dementsprechende Erklaerung die sich auf Maenner bezieht. Es scheint dass die traditionellen albanischen Maenner entweder fuer keine oder fuer alle der Arbeiten zustaendig waren die in nach Kindern und Wohnung in der albanischen Volkswirtschaft uebrig blieben.

Der dritte Satz erklaert dann verschiedene Werte der Frauen. Eine “wertlose” Frau ist ploetzlich sechs Ochsen wert, halbsoviel wie eine Jungfrau oder ein Mann, obwohl der erste Satz das Gegensaetzliche behaupted, naemlich dass Frauen wertloss waren und dass zwischen ihnen und Tieren kein Unterschied gemacht wurde,

Der ganze Text vermittelt den Eindruck dass das traditionelle Albanien festgestellte und universale Werte fuer Maenner, Frauen und Jungfrauen hatte, egal ob jemand aus Familien der Koenige oder der Bettler stammte. Es ist praechtig dass im traditionellen Albanien angeblich Alle so gleichgestellt waren, obwohl es ja wirklich traurig ist dass Jungfrauen in der Hochzeitsnacht angeblich um die Haelfte entwertet wurden.

Noch erstaunlicher ist aber die implizierte Behauptung dass die heutzutagigen albanischen Frauen mehr Wert darauf legen Maedchen und ewige Kinder zu bleiben als darauf dass sie Familienoberhaeupter werden duerfen. Daraus ensteht dann die Frage wie man so etwas feststellen kann. Macht man das durch Volksbefragungen? Wurde ueber so etwas waerend der Jahrhunderte immer Buch gehalten? Offensichtlich ist es fuer Feministen (weibliche wie maennliche) moeglich unglaubliche Behauptungen zu machen ohne irgendwelche glaublichen Quellen angeben zu muessen.

Kann es wirklich wahr sein dass gegenwaertig nur noch ungefaehr 40 albanische Frauen die Hosen anzogen und dass alle albanische Frauen lebenslange Maedchen bleiben wollen? Das wuerde bedeuten das die ganze albanische Bevoelkerung innerhalb der naechsten zwei Generationen aussterben wird, und dass die Letzten die dann sterben keine Kinder oder Enkelkinder haben die sie beerdigen. Man kann nur hoffen dass die Letzten das Licht abschalten bevor sie sich zur Ruhe legen. Wie im Allgemeinem mit feministischen Behauptungen, so enthaelt auch diese einen kleinen Kern der Wahrheit.

Obwohl mit 2,02 Kindern die Fruchtbarkeitsziffer waehrend der fruchtbaren Jahre der albanischen Durchschnittsfrau die Erhaltung der albanischen Bevoelkerung nicht ganz sichert, ist es noch nicht so dass die Austerbung der albanischen Bevoelkerung vor der Tuere steht. Jedoch beweisst diese Behauptung dass der Einfluss der feministischen Bevoelkerungspolitiken allgemein toedlich ist. Es gibt in der ganzen Welt noch weitere 92 Laender deren Fruchtbarkeitsziffern noch niedriger sind. Nicht nur das, aber viele dieser Laender, darunter Deutschland und fast alle europaeischen Laender, haben bedeutend-drohend niedrigere Fruchtbarkeitsziffern, so dass das Aussterben dieser unfruchtbaren Laender zur wirklich drohenden Moeglichkeit geworden ist. Zum Beispiel erwarted man jetzt dass die gegenwaertige Bevoelkerung (140 Millionen) der Russischen Föderation beim Jahr 2045 auf 70 Millionen runtergefallen sein wird.

Durch viele solche bloedsinnige Behauptungen wie die ueber die albanischen Frauen ist es dem Feminismus gelungen die Macht zu ergreifen. Das ist das Erstaunlichste von Allem. Es scheint dass eins der ersten Dinge die durch die feministische Umschulung abgeschafft wurden war das Sprichwort, “Wer einmal luegt dem glaubt man nicht, und wenn er auch die Wahrheit spricht.” Danach wurde feministischen Luegen dann freie Bahn gegeben.

Anstelle die Wahrheit anzugeben, erfinden Feministen geschichtliche Dichtungen in fernen Landen die man durch keine glaubbaren Sozialforschungen beweisen kann, die aber dann gebraucht werden um die angebliche Unterdrueckung der Frauen zuhause zu illustrieren. Das ist so nicht nur in Deutschland aber auch in allen entwickelten Laendern.

Jedoch, wie es so mit Propaganda geht, das gab es ja schon zu Hitler’s Zeiten; woran ich mich noch sehr gut erinnere. Obwohl die Rolle der Frauen zu der Zeit angeblich auf Kinder, Kueche und Kirche beschraenkt wurde, meine Mutter und die Muetter meiner Schulfreunde waren die unbestreitbaren Herrscherinnen ihrer Familien deren “Familienoberhaeupte” ohne jede Frage am Zahltag, nach 48 und mehr Stunden schwerer Arbeit in der Woche, die bis auf etwas entnommenes Taschengelt vollen Lohntueten ablieferten. Der Zahltag war der Tag des “Herrn”: “Her mit dem Gelt!” Ein populaerer Witz aus der Zeit erklaerte dass solche unterdrueckte Maenner am Zahltag auf den Haenden in “ihre” Haeuser eintreten mussten, waerend ihre Frauen darauf warteten dass den Maennern sogar das Wechselgelt aus den Taschen rausfallen wuerde.

Tja, Maenner muessen noch eine grosse Strecke gehen bis sie guten Endes mit den Frauen gleichberechtigt werden. Seit den traditionellen Zeiten (Anfang des letzten Jahrhunderts) in Deutschland hat sich der Unterschied in den durchschnittlichen Lebenserwartungen von Frauen und Maennern von praktisch nichts auf sechs Jahre zugunsten der Frauen erweitert. Ohne jede Frage, das ist nur durch die unermuedliche Forschung und Arbeit der Maenner ermoeglicht worden; aber das kann nicht zugegeben werden, am wenigsten von Feministen, seien sie Maenner oder Frauen. Wuerde man das zugeben, dann wuerden die Zeichen angeblicher Unterdrueckung der Frauen wie Rauch im Wind verschwinden.

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

P.S.: For those who understand English, there is an excellent little book (accessible on-line and requiring less than two hours reading time) “If Men Have All the Power How Come Women Make the Rules”, by Jack Kammer that debunks many of the myths invented by feminists over the years. Here are two examples from that book:

1. misogyny:	“a widely accepted social attitude in a sexist world” includes beliefs that “demean [women’s] bodies… characters and… efforts.”
   misandry:	“1) a refusal to suppress the evidence of one’s experience with men; 2) a woman’s defense against fear and pain; 3) an affirmation of the cathartic effects of justifiable anger.”

   — from A Feminist Dictionary
   compiled by Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler;
   quoted in Jack Kammer’s
   “If Men Have All the Power How Come Women Make the Rules”

   (Note: Just so there’s no mistaking the true meanings of the terms, look up the proper definitions of misogyny and misandry.)

2. Feminism four hundred years ago — Oppression?

“It is an amazing thing to see in our city the wife of a shoemaker, or a butcher, or a porter dressed in silk with chains of gold at the throat, with pearls and a ring of good value… and then in contrast to see her husband cutting the meat, all smeared with cow’s blood, poorly dressed, or burdened like an ass, clothed with the stuff from which sacks are made… but whoever considers this carefully will find it reasonable, because it is necessary that the lady, even if low-born and humble, be draped with such clothes for her natural excellence and dignity, and that the man [be] less adorned as if a slave, or a little ass, born to her service.”

— Lucrezia Marinella, Venice, Italy, 1600
The Nobility and excellence of Women Together
With the Defects and Deficiencies of Men

Quoted on page 22 of
If Men Have All the Power How Come Women Make the Rules

–WHS

Posted in Education, Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

June 29, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

TownHall.com
25 June 2008

Illegitimate Political Agenda
By Karin Agness

This political season, the Democratic primary quickly turned into a lightning rod for discussing sexism, the “glass ceiling” and the good ol’ boys club. The usual suspects, Gloria Steinem, Geraldine Ferraro and Patricia Schroeder, were leading the way in making these claims. They were supported, however, by a vocal cadre of women from academia. The well-organized attacks launched by these professors caught many people off-guard because most people do not realize that this is exactly what these professors are trained to do - to lead social revolutions. …(Full Story)

Posted in Education, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Men's Issues, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

June 28, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

After more than 40 years of devising and implementing largely feminist social policies that deliberately aimed at systematically deconstructing the institution of the natural and traditional nuclear family in the US and in other developed nations, it would seem that a report that identifies the dimensions of the economic costs of escalating family fragmentation (in the order of several trillion dollars in the US) would attract major media attention.  However, it did not do that.

The enormous costs of more than four decades of extremely expensive social engineering with far more expensive social and economic consequences that are destroying the leading nation and many others on Earth received virtually no attention in the main-stream media.  It boggles the mind that families headed by married parents, one of each sex, have become politically incorrect to such an extent that discussing their strengthening is now an unmentionable taboo in the media.

A 2008 06 28 Internet search using news.google.com produced only four instances (at Kansas City Star, CNSnews.com, Tucson Citizen and Human Events) of articles that addressed or discussed the press release quoted below.  It goes without saying that the report identifying the details of the economic costs of family fragmentation must have been read by very few journalists.  That indicates virtually absolute censorship by a totalitarian ideology that has almost without exception all of the media in its thrall.

Institute for American Values	Georgia Family Council
Institute for Marriage and Public Policy	Families Northwest

April 15, 2008
Source: http://www.americanvalues.org/coff/pressrelease.pdf

Contact: Sheila Weber, Director of Communications
sheila@americanvalues.org; 646-322-6853

Marriage Breakdown Costs Taxpayers at Least $112 Billion a Year

First-Time Research Reveals Staggering Annual Taxpayer Costs for Divorce and Unwed Childbearing

WASH. D.C. In first-ever research, a new report quantifies a minimum $112 billion annual taxpayer cost from high rates of divorce and unmarried childbearing. It identifies national, state and local costs which account for more than $1 trillion in the last decade. This landmark scholarly study, entitled “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All 50 States,” was released on April 15^th at the National Press Club by four renowned policy and research groups—Institute for American Values, Georgia Family Council, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and Families Northwest.

“This study documents for the first time, that divorce and unwed childbearing—besides being bad for children—are also costing taxpayers a ton of money,” said David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values. “Even a small improvement in the health of marriage in America would result in enormous savings to taxpayers,” he continued. “For example, a 1 percent reduction in rates of family fragmentation would save taxpayers $1.1 billion.”

“These costs are due to increased taxpayer expenditures for anti-poverty, criminal justice and education programs, and through lower levels of taxes paid by individuals whose adult productivity has been negatively affected by increased childhood poverty caused by family fragmentation,” said principal investigator Ben Scafidi, Ph.D., economics professor at Georgia College & State University.

“Prior research shows that marriage lifts single mothers out of poverty and therefore reduces the need for costly social benefits,” said Scafidi. “This new report shows that public concern about the decline of marriage need not be based only on ‘moral’ concerns, but that reducing high taxpayer costs of family fragmentation is a legitimate concern of government, policymakers and legislators, as well as community reformers and faith communities.”

“This report now provides the basis for a national consensus that strengthening marriage is a legitimate policy concern,” said Blankenhorn. “The report’s numbers represent an extremely cautious estimate, a lower-bound figure, and have been vetted by a group of distinguished scholars and economists who have attached their names as advisors to this report.”

“These numbers represent real people and real suffering,” said Randy Hicks, president of Georgia Family Council. “Both economic and human costs make family fragmentation a legitimate public concern. Historically, Americans have resisted the impulse to surrender to negative and hurtful trends. We fight problems like racism, poverty and domestic violence because we understand that the stakes are high. And while we’ll never eliminate divorce and unwed childbearing entirely, we can certainly be doing more to help marriages and families succeed.”

########

Sheila Weber, Director of Communications, Institute for American Values, sheila@americanvalues.org, cell: (646) 322-6853

Institute for American Values, 1841 Broadway, Suite 211, New York, NY 10023, Tel: (212) 246-3942, Fax: (212) 541-6665

www.americanvalues.org  www.georgiafamily.org  www.imapp.org  www.familiesnorthwest.org

The press release by itself won’t do anyone much good who wishes to inform himself on what the details are of the consequences of more than four decades of deliberate design and implementation of policies to bring about systematic family deconstruction.

Follow this link to see an index of the documents that you need to see: The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All Fifty States.

The study report stresses time and again that the economic costs of $112 billion per year to US taxpayers are based on extremely cautious estimates and mentions a good number of factors that indicate that the real costs are quite likely much higher.

One of the aspects of the cost estimate is the cost of criminality of children of single parents (78.5% of whom are single mothers).  It is interesting to note that the costs of the criminality of boys and single men were calculated, but that the costs of the criminality of girls and single women were completely omitted from the calculations.  The inclusion of those costs alone would result in a far higher estimate of the real costs to taxpayers.

Posted in Censorship, Divorce, Men and Women Work, Media Bias, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Health, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

June 27, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Below the Belt: A Biweekly Column by NOW President Kim Gandy
June 18, 2008

The commentary by Kim Gandy lists the achievements of a few feminist superheroes who worked away to obtain advances for women. The pickings are slim and make for a sour comparison in relation to the achievements of men throughout history. She lists none of those achievements by men.

Moreover, Kim Gandy does not deliver what the title of her comment promises: the absence of boundaries. Her commentary quite clearly identifies boundaries, the boundaries of a universe limited and confined by advances of feminism and ostensible benefits to women that are being paid for by all of society, largely to the detriment of women.

So, let’s take a look at some of the achievements by men who worked to bring about improvements not only for men or for women, but for the human condition and the advancement of progress for all of civilization.

….The typical feminist belittling done by Elizabeth Farrelly of literary tributes by and to men betrays an even more typical feminist ignorance of the respect that society once had for men and even more so with regard to the literary giants produced by mankind. All of those literary giants were without exception men. Beginning with Homer, Aristotle and Plato, there was a long succession of men that worked as philosophers, poets and scientists who time and again examined everything and anything relating to man’s existence and devised a steady stream of improvements of the human condition. That still is being done by men today, even though feminists began some decades ago their increasingly successful and counter-productive program for the deconstruction of families and civilization.

From the design and construction of the great Gothic cathedrals to the creation of masterpieces of culinary art, far more was used and necessary than the monsyllabic vocabulary Elizabeth Farrelly speculates was customary fifty years ago. Without a doubt, every one of the wonders and masterpieces of artistic expressions throughout the history of mankind was virtually without exception the work of men….

From: A nation of pansies

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

June 27, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Roger wrote:

Hello, I am a father who’s been through the family courts and won. It took 2 years but I have 100% custody of my daughter and am now looking to get more involved. I want to start a faith based non-profit organization to work solely with father’s in trying to keep marriages together and if they do split to make sure that father has a place in his child’s life. I am contacting you to see if you are a non-profit and if so what sources of funding are you receiving. I’m attempting to get a US government grant but there really is nothing in the area of father’s. Any assistance you could give would be much appreciated. Thank You.

Hello Roger,

Thanks for writing.

Yes, we are a non-profit organization, with me being the researcher and writer, and with my wife being the editor-in-chief (and with contributions by many writers from all over the world). We don’t have government approval for being non-profit, but that is not necessary, as there are no profits, only expenses.

We network nationally and internationally with pro-family- and pro-fathers-rights activists and have been doing that since 1988, as soon as my recovery from the financial devastation caused by my separation and divorce in 1975 made it barely affordable to purchase a PC and my first modem (an external one). The costs of that were close to $4,000 (employer-funded purchase plan with a low-interest loan) and exceeded by a factor of four what we could afford to spend on groceries that year for a family of three, but then we lived on our farm. That made it possible to avoid starvation, but things were very tight, financially.

We have not been overwhelmed with donations, but there were some. I believe that the grand-total in donations over the years adds up to about $27. Mind you, it would not be practical to ask for donations from an audience whose members are largely at the edge of bankruptcy.

There is no government funding available for the cause of fathers rights. The following quote explains the government’s stand on funding for such things.

…Hedy Fry, secretary of state of Status of Women Canada, said in an interview that men will have to look elsewhere unless they want to study issues related to women.
Despite a quarter century of federal financial support, she said, Canadian women are still not on “a level playing field” with men.
“Hopefully there will come a time,” she said, “when we won’t have need for equality programs for women because men and women will be competing on a level playing field. Traditionally, 51 per cent of our resources [women] have not had the same opportunity as the 49 per cent [men] have had.” “If there is a men’s group,” she added, “or a Martian group, that comes and says, “we agree with you, and we want to work in our community to change this, . . . if the project was a good one we would fund them….” …Status of Women Canada has an annual budget of $17 million. About $9 million goes towards departmental costs and the rest is given in grants to women’s groups or programs.

quoted in “WOMEN’S GROUP WON’T SHARE FUNDING”
by Chris Cobb in the Ottawa Citizen

We live in the province of Alberta, in Canada. Alberta has about 3.2 million residents and spends in the order of $13 million a year on battered women’s shelters and other women’s issues. Then there is also federal funding for women’s issues, more than $400 million a year in all of Canada. In contrast, there is not a single dollar in provincial or federal funding for men’s issues. That is very similar to how things are in the US, where “for every $1,000 spent to deal with the effects of family disintegration, only $1 is spent to prevent that disintegration.” (Source: The Effects of Divorce on America)

You may wish to contact individual fathers rights organizations in the US to inquire of them as to whether any of them receive any funding and how they went about getting it. Select contact details from this directory: Men’s And Women’s Resources — By State.

I have to warn you, though. If and when the unlikely happens and funding is obtained, it is very easy to become to depend on that source of income. It is even easier to lose that source of income and have the funding cut off. That doesn’t just apply to funding but also to the status of being a non-profit organization. Any non-profit organization with income from private sources can be (and frequently has been) brought to its knees by being forced to pay taxes after its non-profit status has become revoked when politically incorrect statements were made or issued, often even when such statements were made privately.

Government-provided funding brings obligations; and restrictions on freedom of speech are some of them. Independence from government funding brings about a greater extent of freedom of speech, although in Canada that may come to naught when anyone launches a complaint against a given organization or individual. The costs of hearings by Canada’s human rights tribunals (free to complainants but expensive for alleged violators of Canada’s hate-crime laws - whether guilty or not) begin at about $65,000, can run up to many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and can drag on for years.

In their 31 years of existence, the Canadian Human Rights Commissions never once found for the defendants in hate-crime allegations. The Alberta Human Rights Commission ruled a few years ago against the Report Newsmagazine (now defunct). The Report Newsmagazine responded as follows:

Moving from the ridiculous to the dangerous, you state that principles of human rights are “basic law,” and are not “tentative notions or vague public policy.” So say you. This too amounts to an arbitrary and false assertion. As you know, the guidance we got from the Court of Queen’s Bench listed no fewer than 10 factors, most of them amounting to subjective guesswork, to be weighed singly and in aggregate, before someone publishes a controversial statement about any of the groups you people purport to protect.

These 10 factors are: “content of the communication,” “tone,” “image conveyed, including use of quotations or reference sources,” “vulnerability of the [described] group,” “the degree to which the expression reinforces stereotypes,” “the circumstances surrounding the message, including whether the messages appeal to well publicized issues,” “the medium used to convey the message,” “the circulation of the publication,” “the credibility to be accorded to the communication,” and “the context of the publication, or for example whether it is part of a debate, or is presented as news, or as a purportedly authoritative analysis.”

In conclusion, you explain that an offence occurs when a complainant in one of your client classes feels discriminated against. It is not excused by the intention of the person making the statement, nor (we are left to deduce) if the facts being complained about are true, or if the beliefs being expressed are sincerely held. Intent doesn’t matter, beliefs don’t matter, facts don’t matter; if someone on your protected species list feels discriminated against in’ public discourse, the public discourse must stop. The full implications of this legal absurdity boggle the mind.

From: Letter from the Publisher of The Report

Our reply to the Alberta Human Rights Commission

I am curious about your success in court. Did you hire a lawyer or did you represent yourself? How much did you have to shell out in lawyer fees, fees for expert witnesses and court costs? Is your ex-wife paying child support? If so, how much?

Do you have website going? Will you stay involved with pro-fathers activism if you cannot obtain funding from private or government sources?

All the best,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Censorship, Education, Men's Issues, Family, Feminism | Print | No Comments »

June 24, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

For decades now, it has been the aim of social engineers in the judiciary, of judiciary activists, to achieve the removal of dad from the social landscape. The consequences of the war against the family manifest themselves through escalating divorce rates in the developed nations, not merely through the increasing removal of dads from their families and from the lives of the children of divorce but through the criminalization of fatherhood.

For many years various reports in the media identified the growing trend of the divorce courts to get rid of dad in the developed nations.  The cover of the August 17, 1992 issue of  the Western Report showed an illustration of a family with the ghost of dad, to fit the story, “Getting Rid of Dad : The fathers fight back”, an article that described that false allegations levelled against men who are said to have sexually abused their children have become the weapon of choice in custody battles following divorce and separation.

“The fatherless Society” was the title of the cover story of the November 17, 1997 issue of Der Spiegel. It would be hard to find better examples of the presence of this international calamity than in the following articles that were produced by Matthias Matussek, a journalist and author writing for Der Spiegel (The Mirror), a widely-read German weekly news-magazine in a style similar to Time Magazine.

The article “Men are the Losers” provides an overview of the state of German family law and its consequences. The second article in Der Spiegel, The disfranchised Father, provides an in-depth look into the issues leading up to and involving the destruction of marriages and its effects on society. The article by Matthias Matussek “ Sisters, Stop Sucking Your Thumbs!” was not published in a printed version of Der Spiegel, but it was shown at Der Spiegel’s web site.

There have been numerous chapters in the story of the elimination of dad from the social landscape. There is no doubt that the feminists’ war against fathers and the traditional nuclear family spread from the judiciary to other sectors of society, and that it for some years now even came to influence and control the curriculum of the education systems of developed nations. That it did so should not surprise anyone.

The education system always played a key role in the vilification of political enemies of the state and to bring about the realization of political goals, especially in totalitarian systems. When lasting changes of society were to be brought about, the indoctrination of children played a key role in gaining control of the minds of the people of nations.

Plato, in Republic, has Socrates offer this advice to philosopher kings who intend to establish and maintain their absolute power: “Take all the children from their parents and rid the city of adults.

Napoleon and the founders of the Wandervogel (”bird of passage”, the enormously popular youth movement that began in about 1880 in Germany and produced many of the prominent — and often homosexual — Nazi leaders) stated: “Who owns the youths controls the future.”

Lenin said: “Give me your 4-year-olds, and within one generation I’ll construct a socialist state.”

Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: “[The State] must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure. It must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. It must see to it that only the healthy beget children….”

Paul Lowe, a Canadian fathers rights activist who, during the last few days of his life and dying from cancer, asked in 1998 in his presentation to the Alberta Justice Summit: “Would little Johnny be a criminal if he grew up to call somebody Dad?”

All is fair in war and in love, at least in the eyes of school officials.  Little Johnny must be prevented from mentioning dad and even be made to forget all about him.  Mentioning “dad” in schools is no longer politically correct.  To do so would offend children who grow up fatherless on account of the life-style choices of their “parents”.

The judicial war against the family expanded and became part of the education curriculum.  In many schools in all developed nations, the words “dad” and “mom” have been replaced by the words “parent” and “parents”, so as to become all-inclusive of “valid” alternative life-style choices.

The latest skirmish in the war against the family and fathers occurred in Scotland, where “Thousands of primary pupils were prevented from making Father’s Day cards at school for fear of embarrassing classmates who live with single mothers and lesbians,” but where, so far, the creation of Mothers-Day cards is still permissible.

And so the war against families and fathers continues until dads and the last remnants of the traditional nuclear family have vanished not only from the social landscape but even from the minds of children.

Posted in Education, Censorship, Paternal Rights, Divorce, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »