May 8, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Hallo Olivier,

Es ist gut dass es scheint dass Du in guter Stimmung bist und dass wir noch einmal unsere Gedanken austauschen koennen.

Zuerst noch, und nebenbei, Ich habe noch die Webseiten in Bezug auf den Hungerstrike in Berlin.  Gerade gestern oder am vorherigen Tag hatte ich mit Bezug auf Dein Schicksal Links zu Karin Jaeckel’s Beschreibung der Umstaende Deines Freispruch’s eingesetzt.

Freispruch ist ja Bloedsinn.  Mir fehlt viel am deutschen Wortschatz.  Darum werde ich jetzt lieber zwei englische Begriffe gebrauchen: “exoneration” (Freispruch auf Grund dessen dass die Unschuld des Angeklagten bewiesen wurde) gegenueber “acquittal” (Freispruch auf Grund dessen dass die Schuld des Angeklagten nicht bewiesen werden konnte).  Das Letztere heisst dass der Verdacht der Schuld immer noch besteht.

Du, viele Andere und ich wissen dass in Deinem Fall das Gerichtsurteil eine Farce ist.  Es tut mir leid dass Du, wie auch viele andere, so durch die Muehle gedreht wurdest.

Olivier, im Bezug auf dass Jugendamt gibt es in jedem englisch-sprachigen Land (sogar in Indien) so etwas wie das Sozialamt (Social Services), welches in vielen Laendern eine Abteilung hat die man unter verschiedenen Namen kennt: z. b. Kinderamt (Children’s Services) oder Jugendfuersorge (Youth & Welfare).  Diese Jugendaemter in den verschiedenen englisch-sprechenden Laendern arbeiten mit den ihnen entssprechenden Familiengerichten sehr eng zusammen (so ungefaehr verbunden und politisch gleichgerichtet wie es die Gestapo und die Volksgerichtshoefe waren) .

Diese Familiengerichte wurden in den spaeten sechziger und fruehen siebziger Jahren speziell erstellt; um die Scheidungsverfahren zu beschleunigen die sich aus den enorm grossen Arbeitsrueckstaenden der normalen Gerichtshoefe ergaben - als die sogenannte verschuldensunabhängige Ehescheidung die neue rechtsverbindliche Sozialnorm wurde.

Die Beschleunigung der Gerichtsverfahren in den Familiengerichten konnte nur dadurch erreicht werden indem man die Prozesse so vereinfachte wie es in vergleichbaren Volksgerichtshoefen aller totalitaeren Regierungen ueblich war und ist.  Damit gibt es in Familiengerichtsverfahren schwache Rechte sondern nur starke Richtungen.  Eine gute Zahl der nordamerkanischen Rechtsanwaelte (darunter sogar Richter) nennen die Familiengerichte “kangaroo courts” (korrupte Gerichte).

Dadurch wurde dann auch in der sogenannten freien Welt der Wunsch von Marx, Engels und Lenin, der Wunsch auf die freie Liebe (heute nennt man das “sexual freedom”; Ich konnte keinen deutschen Ausdruck dafuer finden), zur Tatsache, indem man ganz einfach den Ehevertrag undurchsetzbar machte und dann in fast allen Faellen der verschuldensunabhängigen Ehescheidungen den Ehemaennern die Schuld auflegte.

Ich weiss nicht viel von franzoesischen Familien-Statistiken, aber in allen englisch-sprachigen Laendern sind sie sehr leicht genau so schlimm (oder vielleicht noch schlimmer) als die welche in Deutschland zutreffen.  Ich weiss aber dass die familien-feindlichen Dinge in Spanien sich jezt immer schneller den internationalen Normen anpassen, obwohl Spanien noch vor wenigen Jahren mit dem feministischen Sozialfortschritt etwas zurueckgeblieben war, bedeutend mehr zurueck als es in Deutschland der Fall war.

In der Abwesenheit von genauen Vergleichstatistiken die es andererweits beweisen, moechte ich suggerieren dass jedes andere Jugendamt irgendwo in der Welt Dir oder anderen Auslaendern gegenueber gleichmaessige Unrechte ausueben wuerde.

Nach meiner Ansicht wird sich nicht viel mit der Durchfuehrung der internationalen Agenda fuer die geplante Zerstoerung der Familie aendern, so lange nicht bis Maenner und Vaeter sich so effektiv und international vernetzen wie es feministische und aesserst linke Rechtsanwaelte, Richter, Sozialarbeiter, Sozialwissenschaftler and andere solche Aktivisten es tun.  Dass die letzteren es tun ist einfach eine Tatsache.  Sie vernetzen sich ausserhalb der oeffentlichen diplomatischen Regierungsverbindungen.

So lange das stattfinded wird die westliche Welt stetig zugreifend korrupt, bis sie zum Ende - innerhalb von hoechst Vier Generationen und dem roemischen Reich gleichend - unter ihrem eigenen Gewicht zusammenfallen wird.  Die westliche Welt wird nicht mit einem Knall sondern mit leisem Gewimmer verschwinden, da die stetig fallenden Geburtszahlen es dazu bringen werden dass die eingeborenen Bevoelkerungen durch die grossen Geburtszahlen anderer Voelker ersetzt werden.  Genau wie beim Untergang des roemischen Reiches finden nun grosse Voelkerwanderungen statt (die durch die Vereinten Nationen sehr stark gefoerdert werden).  Man will es damit ermoeglichen die Weltbevoelkerung bei dem Jahr 2150 bis auf eine Milliarde Menschen oder weniger herunter zu bringen, um den Einfluss der Menschheit (die man als ein Karzinom auf dem Angesicht der Mutter Erde ansieht) als ertragbar zu veringern.

Sehr wahrscheinlich wird sich bis zum unvermeidlichen Zusammenbruch nichts mehr aendern.   Es gibt nichts Neues unter der Sonne.  Das letzte Mal, in 1945, wurde bis zum bitteren Ende noch immer gesungen: “Wir werden weitermarschieren, bis alles in Scherben faellt…” obwohl alles schon in Schutt und Asche zerfallen war.  Ich war 10 Jahre alt als das zu Ende ging und muss nun - wie Andere meines Alters nahe am Ende meines Lebens - den Anfang eines anderen, noch groesseren Zusammenbruches erfahren.

Alles Gute,

Walter

P.S.: Die Zahl der einzelnen Besucher meiner Homepage ist waehrend der letzten 12 Monate um 2,5 Millionen angestiegen und gleicht damit im Totalen pappa.com in der weltweiten Rangstelle.

Posted in Divorce, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

May 2, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The Times (Britain)
1 May 2008

Vengeful mothers leave good fathers powerless to see child, says judge
By Rosemary Bennett, Social Affairs Correspondent

A senior judge spoke out against child access law yesterday, saying that
the courts were powerless to help decent fathers to see their children if
vengeful mothers stood in the way….(Full Story)

Posted in Divorce, Child-Custody Awards, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child Abduction | Print | No Comments »

May 2, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Ministry fined for firing homosexual employee

Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow - 5/1/2008 12:00:00 PM

Canadian ministry Christian Horizons has been fined more than $23,000 for firing an employee who was actively engaged in a homosexual relationship.

Christian Horizons is an evangelical ministry in Ontario that has cared for more than 1,400 people with developmental disabilities in 180 group homes. The group requires all employees to sign a contract agreeing to abstain from all sexual immorality, including homosexuality. When Christian Horizons fired a female employee who became involved with another woman, she complained to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which fined the ministry $23,000 and two years back pay….(Full Story)

Posted in Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

May 1, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

(… even if you don’t know it)

Barbara Kay, National Post

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Unless you swore off newspapers and TV between April 12 and 19 in Quebec, you were exposed to a carpet-bombing of “sensibilisation” ads on sexual assault against women, sponsored by the Ministere de la Culture, Communications et la Condition feminine du Quebec.

The TV ad featured a fresh-faced woman with flowing tresses framing an angelic face — she could be 17 or 25, hard to say — staring gravely into the camera. Calmly, she intones: “One out of every three women in Quebec will be the victim of a sexual assault during her lifetime.” Pregnant pause, then: “I’m one of them.” Cut. …(Full Story)

______________

Perhaps you wonder why the victimization of women is a men’s issue. It is that for two reasons.

Firstly, as Barbara Kay illustrates in her article, the statistic identified by the Minister de la Culture, Communications et la Condition feminine du Quebec, Christine St. Pierre, is cooked, manufactured and not true. She alleges that “1.5 million Quebec women “will” (not “may”) become victims of sexual assault.”

Secondly, the government-sponsored anti-male hate-propaganda campaign labels as many as 1.5 Quebec men as rapists. That is quite an accusation by a minister who was surely elected not only by women but by many of the more than a million Quebec men whom she falsely accuses of being and assuredly becoming rapists.

Christine St. Pierre will most likely never admit that she deliberately lies, even though the sexual assault figures she sponsors and promotes are without a doubt deliberate lies in the eyes of anyone still possessing a modicum of common sense.

Many of Barbara Kay’s articles are pro-family, pro-male and pro-fathers. She has done a lot during her career as a journalist to oppose feminist propaganda and to debunk feminist statistics. However, even she appears to have been taken in somewhat by the decades-long, all-pervasive anti-male propaganda campaign that reigns throughout all developed nations. She states: ” The U.S. National Institute for Justice puts the lifetime risk of sexual assault for women at 14.8%, less than half [of] Mme. St. Pierre’s figure of 33%. Quebec women don’t live more than twice as long as American women. Whence the disparity?”

The problem with even that U.S. statistic is that it is bunk and from a feminist-dominated and -controlled source (as now virtually all government institutions and departments are).

Here are more reasonable calculations of rape-incidents statistics:

1. Advocacy information: 1-in-4 of college women are raped annually A review of Oklahoma University enrolment data and information supplied by campus police yielded the estimate that the annualized rape risk for 1996 freshmen women at OU was 1 chance in 476. [Source: Deflating the Date Rape Scare: A Look At Campus Police Records by Michael P. Wright, Scientific Social Research, Norman, Oklahoma]BJS report NCJ-151658 notes that there are 2 rapes or attempted rapes reported per 1,000 US citizens, which is 530,000 reports of rape per year. There are 15,000 rape convictions annually. Based on new DNA tests, a third of those convictions are now found to be false. Therefore, there are potentially 520,000 false rape allegations a year. (Debunking Domestic Violence Statistics, by Eeva Sodhi)
2. FBI Rape Statistics and DNA Testing “…consider that the FBI program of DNA testing of rapists didn’t begin until 1989, and that therefore it is very likely that about 25 or perhaps as many as 40 percent of men convicted before 1989 of and serving time for rape are innocent.” (Full Story)
3. False Allegations of Rape In the US, there are an estimated 520,000 false rape allegations a year — 98.1% of all reported cases. — Eeva Sodhi, Debunking Domestic Violence Statistics; Rape

So, let’s do what Barbara Kay did, measure the false allegation by Mme. Christine St. Pierre, Minister de la Culture, Communications et la Condition feminine du Quebec, by the standards of U.S. reality. 98.1 percent of rape allegations are false. That adjusts Christine St. Pierre’s exaggerated assertion of 1.5 million rape victims down to a mere 28,500, which is still substantially more than the Canadian total number of rapes over the average life time of women.

Over the years there were on average in the order of 100 rape conviction per year in all of Canada. That works out to 8,000 rape convictions over an 82-year interval. That was until about 1972, when Canadian rape statistics became so absurd that they lost virtually all meaning.

So, how come that Christine St. Pierre can use tax revenues (about 70 percent of those come from men) to promote her monstrous lie? Why does any man still bother to vote for her and her party? If a man were to engage in propaganda tactics like those used by Christine St. Pierre, those would be considered hate crimes and sexual harassment. He would assuredly be hauled into court, and he would without a doubt be convicted of a hate crime.

Things weren’t always so. They became that way in about 1972, when feminist jurisprudence became reality in Canada and in many (now all) developed nations.

Within feminist jurisprudence, the boundaries between sexual harassment and sexual assault became blurred and largely obscured.

…”rape statistics” in Canada now encompass uncorroborated allegations of - including criminal convictions for - offences that range from uncorroborated charges of leering at a woman in a public swimming pool to rape with aggravated assault and murder. That had a fine effect. It raised statistics for incidents of “rape” to dizzying heights, all the more so because feminists in non-government organization and in government make no distinction between reports of rape or of sexual assault (allegations of crimes - innocent until proven guilty) and rape or sexual assault convictions (the alleged offender is being found guilty and sentenced accordingly in about 1.9 percent of allegations).

That is then taken by feminist activists in non-government and government positions alike as a permission to exaggerate and grossly distort statistics relating to criminal offences of a sexual nature - of course, only in relation to offenses against women.

The reality of sexual assaults in Quebec is that an allegation is overwhelmingly often false and is not admissible evidence that a criminal offence did take place, unless the alleged offender is found guilty in a criminal court, and that the number 1.5-million victims of sexual assault allegations by far exceeds the Canadian total convictions for sexual assaults for perpetrators of both sexes. The average of such convictions in the 1994 - 2002 interval in Canada was 1,828 per year, of which Quebec’s share would have been in the order of no more than 460 a year. The vast majority of the convictions would have been for minor offences, such as unwanted sexual touching (e. g.: pinching a waitress, or a student snapping the bra of his peer).

This is not a trivial problem, as the following comment and quoted link show:

Woman Who Made Five False Rape Allegations Walks Free

A woman who made a string of false rape claims, leading to the arrest of five different men and wasting massive amounts of police time, has walked free from court.

Note that these demonstrably false allegations will be called ‘rapes’ by the police and the Home Office when they compile and publicise their various bogus statistics. And that these five false allegations will also be multiplied upwards by a factor of somewhere between 5 and 20 when ‘working out’ how many women allegedly failed to report their ‘rapes’ to the police. (Source: Angry Harry)

According to Statistics Canada:

Sexual offences defined

The term sexual offences encompasses a wide range of criminal acts in the Criminal Code of Canada. Such conduct ranges from unwanted sexual touching to sexual violence resulting in serious physical injury or disfigurement to the victim. It also includes special categories of offences designed to protect children from sexual abuse.

In this Juristat, the term sexual assault includes the following Criminal Code offences:

(a) Sexual assault level 1 (s. 271) - an assault committed in circumstances of a sexual nature such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated. Level 1 involves minor physical injuries or no injuries to the victim. This is a hybrid offence and may be prosecuted as an indictable offence (with a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment) or by way of summary conviction (with a maximum sentence of 18 months imprisonment or $2,000 fine) ³

(b) Sexual assault level 2 (s. 272) - sexual assault with a weapon, threats or causing bodily harm. Level 2 is an Indictable offence carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment. A mandatory minimum sentence of 4 years In prison is imposed If a firearm is used.

(c) Aggravated sexual assault (level 3) - sexual assault that results In wounding, maiming, disfiguring or endangering the life of the victim. Level 3 is an indictable offence carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. A mandatory minimum sentence of 4 years in prison is Imposed if a firearm is used.

As per those definitions allegations of sexual offences reported by police and “guilty” decision by Canadian Courts in the 1994 - 2002 interval were as follows:

Source: Source: Statistics Canada, Juristat, Sexual Offences in Canada; Cat no. 85-002-XIE, Vol. 23, no. 6

Note that the court decisions for a given “judicial” year do not necessarily correlate exactly to the number of reported allegations of sexual offences in a related calendar year (an allegation may not result in a trial and a finding of “guilty” until more than a year has gone by). For the purposes of the argument presented here, the conviction rates for the averages worked out from the totals of the eight-year interval are held to be reasonably close to reality.

Posted in Media Bias, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

April 29, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

From http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/pubtoptenmyths.htm

The Top Ten Myths of Divorce

Discussion of the most common misinformation about divorce

David Popenoe

1 Because people learn from their bad experiences, second marriages tend to be more successful than first marriages.

Although many people who divorce have successful subsequent marriages, the divorce rate of remarriages is in fact higher than that of first marriages.¹ [Sources]

2 Living together before marriage is a good way to reduce the chances of eventually divorcing.

Many studies have found that those who live together before marriage have a considerably higher chance of eventually divorcing. The reasons for this are not well understood. In part, the type of people who are willing to cohabit may also be those who are more willing to divorce. There is some evidence that the act of cohabitation itself generates attitudes in people that are more conducive to divorce, for example the attitude that relationships are temporary and easily can be ended.² [Sources]

3 Divorce may cause problems for many of the children who are affected by it, but by and large these problems are not long lasting and the children recover relatively quickly.

Divorce increases the risk of interpersonal problems in children. There is evidence, both from small qualitative studies and from large-scale, long-term empirical studies, that many of these problems are long lasting. In fact, they may even become worse in adulthood.³ [Sources]

4 Having a child together will help a couple to improve their marital satisfaction and prevent a divorce.

Many studies have shown that the most stressful time in a marriage is after the first child is born. Couples who have a child together have a slightly decreased risk of divorce compared to couples without children, but the decreased risk is far less than it used to be when parents with marital problems were more likely to stay together “for the sake of the children.”⁴[Sources]

5 Following divorce, the woman’s standard of living plummets by seventy three percent while that of the man’s improves by forty two percent.

This dramatic inequity, one of the most widely publicized statistics from the social sciences, was later found to be based on a faulty calculation. A reanalysis of the data determined that the woman’s loss was twenty seven percent while the man’s gain was ten percent. Irrespective of the magnitude of the differences, the gender gap is real and seems not to have narrowed much in recent decades.⁵ [Sources]

6 When parents don’t get along, children are better off if their parents divorce than if they stay together.

A recent large-scale, long-term study suggests otherwise. While it found that parents’ marital unhappiness and discord have a broad negative impact on virtually every dimension of their children’s well-being, so does the fact of going through a divorce. In examining the negative impacts on children more closely, the study discovered that it was only the children in very high conflict homes who benefited from the conflict removal that divorce may bring. In lower-conflict marriages that end in divorce—and the study found that perhaps as many as two thirds of the divorces were of this type—the situation of the children was made much worse following a divorce. Based on the findings of this study, therefore, except in the minority of high-conflict marriages it is better for the children if their parents stay together and work out their problems than if they divorce.⁶ [Sources]

7 Because they are more cautious in entering marital relationships and also have a strong determination to avoid the possibility of divorce, children who grow up in a home broken by divorce tend to have as much success in their own marriages as those from intact homes.

Marriages of the children of divorce actually have a much higher rate of divorce than the marriages of children from intact families. A major reason for this, according to a recent study, is that children learn about marital commitment or permanence by observing their parents. In the children of divorce, the sense of commitment to a lifelong marriage has been undermined.⁷ [Sources]

8 Following divorce, the children involved are better off in stepfamilies than in single-parent families.

The evidence suggests that stepfamilies are no improvement over single-parent families, even though typically income levels are higher and there is a father figure in the home. Stepfamilies tend to have their own set of problems, including interpersonal conflicts with new parent figures and a very high risk of family breakup.⁸ [Sources]

9 Being very unhappy at certain points in a marriage is a good sign that the marriage will eventually end in divorce.

All marriages have their ups and downs. Recent research using a large national sample found that eighty six percent of people who were unhappily married in the late 1980s, and stayed with the marriage, indicated when interviewed five years later that they were happier. Indeed, three fifths of the formerly unhappily married couples rated their marriages as either “very happy” or “quite happy.”⁹ [Sources]

10 It is usually men who initiate divorce proceedings

Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. One recent study found that many of the reasons for this have to do with the nature of our divorce laws. For example, in most states women have a good chance of receiving custody of their children. Because women more strongly want to keep their children with them, in states where there is a presumption of shared custody with the husband the percentage of women who initiate divorces is much lower.¹⁰ [Sources] Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be “badly behaved.” Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.

_______________

The information shown above is from The [US] National Marriage Project:

Leadership

The project is co-directed by two nationally prominent marriage experts. David Popenoe, Ph.D., a professor and and former social and behavioral science dean at Rutgers, is the author of Life Without Father, Disturbing the Nest, and many other scholarly and popular publications on marriage and family. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Ph.D., an author and social critic, writes extensively on issues of marriage, family and child wellbeing. She is the author of Why There Are No Good Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single Woman (Broadway Books, 2003), The Divorce Culture (Knopf, 1996) and the widely acclaimed Atlantic Monthly article “Dan Quayle Was Right.”

The list of the Top-Ten Myths of Divorce attracted my attention because of the comments provided in Item #10 in the list. Somewhat more comprehensive and to-the-point views of the cited Brinig and Allen report provide more relevant information. For example:

The proportion of divorces initiated by women ranged around 60% for most of the 20th century, and climbed to more than 70% in the late 1960s when no-fault divorce was introduced….The Brinig-Allen study also explodes the myth of the brutish husband, finding, for instance, that cruelty is cited in only 6% of divorce applications in Virginia, one of the few states that still uses fault grounds for divorce….adultery cases are evenly split between men and women…. (”Look who doesn’t want a divorce,” Alberta Report, January 11, 1999, page 30)

Brinig and Allen, the authors of the report “These Boots are Made for Walking: Why Wives File for Divorce,” found that “who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce, particularly when there is very little quarrel about property, as when the separation is long.” They found that to have or to be assured that they will get the children (and “child-support” payments) “the probability that she’d file increases to .69,” while “if the husband got custody, the probability that the wife files would decrease to .32.” (Table 7. How much do the numbers matter?)

In divorcing families with children, depending on locality, wives file for divorce in between 75 percent to 85 percent of the cases.

Note also the last statement under Item #10 in the list: “Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be “badly behaved.” Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.”

That statement is pure speculation and not corroborated by any research nor by any citations of such research. The statement appears to be based on another myth, namely that women always tell the truth. That “truth” is largely debunked in the report by Brinig and Allen and in a variety of similar studies (e. g.: Divorced Dads : Shattering the Myths : The Surprising Truth About Fathers, Children, and Divorce (Hardcover - 288 pages (October 1998) J P Tarcher; ISBN: 087477862X ) Review).

For example, in the vast majority of cases wives file for divorce, and they file not because of adultery by their husbands or because they were being physically abused (the latter is theleast important reason of all stated by wives - alleged in only about six percent of the reasons given for divorce) but because they are bored with their marriages.

The myths and slander of men who are “badly behaved” and “are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity” are most likely founded in the myth that women don’t lie. However, even supposedly objective social researchers are not yet quite ready to examine the true circumstances of that reality. The impact of decades of incessant and all-pervasive indoctrination by feminists is often difficult and sometimes impossible to shed by those who are members of the captive audience of the feminist-controlled and -dominated education system.

Posted in Education, Media Bias, Divorce, Child-Custody Awards, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence | Print | 1 Comment »

April 17, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

For many people the term divorce industry means absolutely nothing. It does, however, mean something to two minor sectors of the population:

1. Activist and advocates for pro-family rights and pro-fathers-rights consider the terms divorce industry and fatherlessness to be strongly related. They feel that fatherlessness is tearing apart the fabric of our once-functioning society. They have reason to believe that the divorce industry causes fatherlessness, that is: the removal and the consequences of that removal of fathers from the lives of those fathers’ children.
2. For feminists in non-governmental organizations and in government (whether elected or simply employees of the government bureaucracy), the divorce industry and the fatherlessness produced by the divorce industry matter not at all other than that they wish for the epidemic of fatherlessness to escalate and that they feel that the concerns by fathers-rights activists and by pro-family advocates are a nuisance that at the very least needs to be ignored.

Fatherlessness and the consequences of fatherlessness are growing inexorably, year by year. A steadily growing number of children in all developed nations - roughly a third and more of all children - have no fathers in their lives to guide them, to set rules, to be role models and protectors to their children.

Fathers very seldom abscond their families voluntarily. Virtually all fatherlessness of children is caused by the governments’ sponsorship, promotion and enforcement of anti-father and outright father-hostile sentiments and policies that are being actively promoted and put into play by members of the divorce industry.

When children are present in families, women file for divorce in roughly 75-85 percent of the cases (depending upon country), while without children in a family the dissolution of that family is being initiated by a woman in only two instances for every instance of family dissolution by a man.

The chart shown to the right depicts a typical composition of government departments and of government-sponsored private organizations and interest groups that promote and benefit from the government-promoted concept of fatherless families (a.k.a. sole-mother families or single-mother families). The chart illustrates the composition of the divorce industry in the United States (Source: Statement of Bill Wood, and Jay Gell, Children’s Legal Foundation, Charlotte, North Carolina, [US] Ways and Means Committee, 2001 06 28; footnote 69)

Everyone possessing a bit of common sense is likely to have concerns about the escalating trend towards increasing fatherlessness. Those concerns are well-justified and born out by scientifically-valid findings from research studies done by reputable researchers, studies that meet acceptable academic standards, studies like those quoted in the statement by Bill Wood and Jay Gell to the US Ways and Means Committee. Note that those studies are not creations by fathers rights activists, but that fathers rights activists quote from studies by independent and objective researchers.

Nevertheless, the feminists - whose goal it is to destroy the institution of the family, thereby to create massive fatherlessness and the gradual deconstruction of our Christian cultural heritage - dismiss valid social research regarding fatherlessness as myths and substitute unsubstantiated opinions based at best on nothing more than advocacy research done on selective and biased study samples from whom no valid projections to the general population can be made. Nevertheless, they call such opinions “facts” and they call the scientific truth “myths”. (For example: MYTHS AND FACTS About Fatherlessness)

Such feminists apparently feel justified in replacing the scientific truth with a fanciful reality of their own making because they obstinately believe, imply and even assert that feminists never lie, are therefore always right, and that anyone who disagrees with their outlandish and unsubstantiated opinions must quite simply be wrong.

To discern which side in the debate is right - feminists who promote the deconstruction of our society, or people who wish to promote the constructive evolution and growth of the western cultural heritage and society - one should have a look at a few of about 50,000 web pages and articles that address the subject of fatherlessness and not merely buy into the claims regarding fatherlessness promoted by feminists and published by the largely feminist-dominated and -controlled media.

One of the most-important and most-comprehensive compilations of studies of the impact of fatherlessness is the following: Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family, by Rebecca O’Neill; Sept. 2002, CIVITAS. It wins hands-down in refuting feminist claims that assert positive and constructive consequences of fatherlessness. It is not surprising that such studies do not support feminist claims and are therefore never mentioned by family- and father-hostile feminists.

Posted in Divorce, Education, Censorship, Shared Parenting, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

April 15, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The international networking by English-speaking jurists, judiciary activists, activist judges, and by their adjuncts (non-governmental organizations) is fast and - if not efficient - extremely effective. Therefore it frequently happens that innovative laws and forms of punishment for ostensible criminals make their appearance simultaneously or only separated in time by extremely short intervals in many different English-speaking countries throughout the world.

For instance, in English-speaking countries, drivers-licence removal is a popular and longstanding form of punishment (it has been around for a decade and more) for minor crimes, primarily the “crime” of falling into arrears with child support payments - not necessarily through any personal fault. In English-speaking countries, drivers-licence removals as a form of punishment spread like a wildfire.

Curiously, as Sanford Braver reports in Divorced Dads : Shattering the Myths, where reasonable child access exists for fathers expunged from their families (in the majority of the cases through no fault of their own), child-support payments are voluntarily made in more than 90 percent of cases and often in excess of the specified amounts. About six percent of fathers ordered to pay child-support default on some or all of their payments. At most half of those (about three percent of all divorced dads) are truly “deadbeat dads”. The others are often unable to pay all or pay only part of what they are ordered to pay - because they can’t make ends meet. They have fallen on hard times, such as having become under-employed, unemployed, sick, disabled, hospitalized, incarcerated (very often for outstanding child-support arrears), and even having died (quite often through suicide) and having been buried - as child-support obligations extend in many jurisdictions even beyond the grave.

Germany appears to lag a bit behind in the application of drivers-licence and professional licence removal for the enforcement of compliance with sentences for minor crimes that very often are not crimes at all but nothing other than the inability by idividual (amost exclusively men) to conform to government-imposed financial liabilities.  What will be coming next for a German man so unfortunate will be a life in which he, as a “criminal” (often a debtor with unpaid compulsory child-support obligations), is hobbled by the lack of a drivers licence, by the lack of professional licences and by seriously restricted abilities to earn a living and to pay obligations, instead of having to live a life shackled to the walls of a debtors prison. Is the imposing of the lack of freedom of movement or the freedom to earn a living any more humane than having one’s freedom of movement restricted by the walls of a debtors prison? One so sentenced is always assured good meals and a bed in debtors prison. Moreover, the place is heated and is a lot more comfortable than a cardboard box at -35°C in a back alley.

The appended translation of a German-language news item and of the related introductory comment shows that Germany is in the process of taking the important first step in the removal and denial of the constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of movement in the cases of perpetrators of minor criminal offences. The step to extend the form of punishment that we have become accustomed to for the so-called crime of having fallen on hard times and defaulting on child-support payments will surely follow soon in Germany, too. Let’s hope that the German people will not experience the escalating oppression by the divorce industry to such an extent that it drives up the suicide rates for men even more, as happened in all English-speaking countries.

The remarkable aspect of such outlandish and illogical forms of punishment is that they are invented by bureaucrats and by judicial activists. There never has been, and is not now, any public clamour by the general public to implement novel punishments for so-called crimes that never were and still aren’t a concern of the public. Those crimes, and especially the “crime” of being guilty of having caused a “no-fault” divorce and its consequences or the “crime” of having fallen into arrears on payments that finance the government-sponsored filching of the children one never wanted to be deprived of, are entirely caused by the crazed ideology that drives our governments. It is not that the public has become so depraved that it now is intent on destroying society, but that our governments create “crimes” by manufacturing the conditions that allow the governments to rationalize that the inevitable “crimes” that are the consequence of government-manufactured conditions need to be fought and punished to make the people comply with undemocratic government edicts. That is not a condition of freedom, it is an escalating spiral of causes and consequences in an increasingly totalitarian society.

In the English-speaking countries there is a growing awareness that idiotic allegations of so-called crimes and even more idiotic forms of punishment, such as the removal of the means to make a living, are being driven by an insane ideology that calls for the world-wide implementation of the agenda for the planned destruction of the family and even of the whole Western cultural heritage and traditions.

German people will have to learn that, too. As the comments identified in the appended translation show, some Germans are well on the way to understand what is going on. Let’s hope that, to fully understand, Germans will not have to go all the way to chaos. One would almost think that people who were not all that long ago ordered to fight to the last bullet - until all would turn to rubble and ashes - would by now have enough of radical ideologies that invariably lead to totalitarianism.

–Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org
____________
Translation of German Text

The drivers licence is for the majority of people the foundation for earning money through a job, thereby to pay for taxes, social insurances and the necessities of life, and through that to be enabled not to become a burden on the pockets of the taxpayers. This “prestige value” is so negative that it is possible to implement drivers-licence removal as a form of punishment, so that those that are sentenced are even less able to participate in an acceptable manner in our society.

When young people experience the removal of the basis of their capability to earn money trough jobs, they will no longer be able to create personal wealth and will be unable to pay fines. Therefore monetary fines will become inappropriate. Furthermore, those children won’t be in a position that enables them to become the necessary role models for their children that will motivate the latter to become productive and self-satisfied adults. Later, those children cannot become good parents. They either will have no children, or their children will become a burden on orphanages and foster homes, with all of the well-known consequences.

Is it then that our ministers lost all touch with reality and with realistic-practical thinking? Is that a sort of declaration of bankruptcy of spirit and morality? How much stupidity and moral turpitude can we accept from our lawmakers (in the majority jurists)?

Greetings,

Herbert Greipl

The German Federal Council [Upper House] intends to implement drivers-licence removal into list of punishments in penal code

Berlin: (hib/BOB) The Bundesrat [Upper House] intends to anchor prohibition to drive as part of the penalties provided in the penal code. It presented a draft of a law to that extent (16/8695). The States Chamber expects from that a noticeable impact, on those sentenced, of the [withholding of the] “definitive prestige value” provided by a drivers licence. The Bundesrat argues that, time and again, it happens that there are cases in which the imposing of a monetary fine will, under the personal and economical circumstances of those sentenced, not result in the desired effects. Alternatively, incarceration would in the circumstances of specific cases be disproportionately hard. Drivers-licence removal could thereby be classified as an independent major punishment, without the necessity to have to impose incarceration or a monetary fine. A further example would be not-so-serious deeds with extremist backgrounds - often with application of violence. A relatively large portion of young offenders are affected, according to the government. For such people the removal of the drivers licence could be “a shot across the bow”. The Federal Government agreed to evaluate the proposal.

Mailinglist papa-info - always well informed
e-mail: papa-info@listserv.shuttle.de
web: http://listserv.shuttle.de/mailman/listinfo/papa-info

Original German text

Der Führerschein ist für die Mehrzahl die Grundlage mit beruflicher Tätigkeit Geld zu verdienen und somit Steuern und Sozialversicherung und auch Unterhalt zu bezahlen und nicht dem Staat auf der Tasche zu liegen. Und dieser “Prestigewert” ist so negativ, dass man ihn als Strafe wegnehmen kann, sodass sie dann noch weniger in der Lage sind, in zumutbarer Weise am Wesen unserer Gesellschaft Teil zu nehmen?

Wenn jungen Menschen schon die Grundlage zum beruflichen Geld verdienen genommen wird, so können sie keinen Besitz schaffen und auch keine Geldstrafen bezahlen. Damit sind Geldstrafen für sie ungeeignet. Aber sie sind so auch nicht in der Lage für ihre Kinder das Vorbild zu sein, das notwendig ist, damit diese sich zu tüchtigen, für die Gesellschaft nützlichen und selbst glücklichen Erwachsenen entwickeln können. Diese Kinder können später selbst keine guten Eltern sein. Entweder sie haben dann selbst keine Kinder oder ihre Kinder werden zu Wirtschaftsobjekten zur Belegung von Heimen und Pflegefamilien mit allen bekannten Folgen.

Haben unsere Minister schon jeden Realitätssinn und realistisch-praktisches Denken verloren? Ist das eine Art Bankrotterklärung für Geist und Moral? Wieviel Blödheit und Schlechtigkeit müssen wir Bürger uns noch von unseren Gesetzesmachern (die Mehrzahl sind Juristen) bieten lassen?

Gruß

Herbert Greipl

Bundesrat will Fahrverbot auf Zeit in das Strafgesetzbuch aufnehmen
Recht/Gesetzentwurf

Berlin: (hib/BOB) Der Bundesrat will ein Fahrverbot auf Zeit im Strafgesetzbuch verankern. Er hat dazu einen Gesetzentwurf vorgelegt (16/8695). Die Länderkammer verspricht sich davon eine deutliche Wirkung auf den Verurteilten wegen des “deutlichen Prestigewerts”, die ein Führerschein mit sich bringe. Der Bundesrat argumentiert, immer wieder kämen in der Praxis Fälle vor, in denen die persönlichen und wirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse des Verurteilten für eine Geldstrafe nicht geeignet seien, die mit ihr verfolgten Zwecke zu erfüllen. Andererseits erscheine eine Freiheitsstrafe nach Lage des Falles oft unangemessen hart. Das Fahrverbot könne hierbei als selbstständige Hauptstrafe aufgewertet werden, ohne Geld- oder Freiheitsstrafe verhängen zu müssen. Ein weiteres Beispiel seien nicht ganz so schwerwiegende Taten mit extremistischem Hintergrund - oft unter Anwendung von Gewalt. Ein verhältnismäßig hoher Anteil gerade junger Täter sei betroffen, so die Regierung. Für solche Menschen könne der Entzug des Führerscheins ein wirkungsvoller “Schuss vor den Bug” sein. Die Bundesregierung hat zugesagt, die Anliegen zu prüfen.

Mailingliste papa-info - immer gut informiert
e-mail: papa-info@listserv.shuttle.de
web: http://listserv.shuttle.de/mailman/listinfo/papa-info

Posted in Divorce, Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

April 14, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

This morning I listened to Charles Adler discuss with callers to his radio show the case of the Jamaican woman in Ontario, Ms. Mowatt, who had been jailed for a few days because it looked as if she would not show up as a witness in the domestic violence trial she had launched against the man whom she had alleged abused her, a Mr. Harbin.

Charles Adler and his callers outdid each other on his show in an all-out competition as to who was able to show more sympathy for the (alleged) victim of domestic violence who had been punished twice, once (allegedly) by her abuser (as the alleged victim alleges),  and once more by forcing her to appear as a witness in the trial against the man whom she alleged abused her, but whom she, prior to being jailed, refused to testify against.

Charles Adler and his callers need a dose of reality.  They should, for instance, read Christie Blatchford’s April 12, 2008 article in the Globe and Mail, “A witness in need of a blankie, soother“.  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Christie Blatchford’s opinions regarding the sham of the trial in which Ms. Mowatt made her public appearance is many times more valuable and realistic than the media-hype and show of phony outrage that Charles Adler and his supporters could muster during the sympathy orgy on the Charles Adler show this morning.

What’s the moral outrage really all about?  As Christie Blatchford points out, the young woman most certainly lied, either as a witness or as an accuser.  Which of the stories she told is the right one?  Even if she - as per the feminist assertion that women never lie - told the truth, two contradicting stories can’t possibly both be true.  It seems to me that she perhaps did not wish to appear as a witness to her own lies and be exposed as a perjurer and liar.  She is perhaps yet too young (although her handlers aren’t) to understand that as a woman who alleges that she had been abused she is permitted to lie with impunity, even in our courts.

The “accused” Mr. Harbin pleaded “Not guilty.”  As of now he is legally innocent, but even though his accuser and simultaneously lying witness against him or for him, whichever the case may be, and the court process have not yet established his guilt,  Charles Adler and his callers are quite certain that Mr. Harbin is without any doubt and absolutely guilty.  Moreover, Charles Adler implied that there is good reason to believe that all innocent people like Mr. Harbin are “piece[s] of human garbage” and capable and liable of killing their accusers by shooting them in the head.

That is not news reporting or even commenting with any trace of objectivity or truthfulness.  It is propagandistic hype, used to paint all men with the same broad brush.

Odd, Charles Adler is a man, I suppose.  His voice sounds like the voice of a man, although his words don’t.  I wonder whether any woman ever accused him of abusing her.  Perhaps that is still to come.  It is entirely possible, for any man, even for Charles Adler.  The likelihood of that happening is far greater than Charles Adler ever living up to his assuming his share of the guilt that he assigned to all men, namely that if he is ever accused by a woman of abusing her - whether the abuse took place or not - Charles Adler then becomes in his own words “a piece of human garbage” capable of killing his accuser by shooting her in the head.

Charles Adler should consider this: false accusations are as old as humanity - even the Bible tells us so.  It takes collaborators like Charles Adler to make them stick, and they almost invariably cause far more serious harm than the alleged abuse did (allowing in the process for good incomes to be earned by a lot of people in the resulting theater plays (a.k.a. court hearings) and associated industry surrounding them).

False abuse allegations are serious acts of interpersonal (often domestic) violence.  They often destroy the lives of the falsely accused.  It takes people like Charles Adler to have them come out that way or, at the very least, to have them stick to an individual like you-know-what to a blanket.

Posted in Media Bias, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

April 12, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Ms JW wrote:

Please can you explain how Quebec Laws allow fathers and mothers who wish to avoid paying child support emigrate to your beautiful country.

Why is Quebec not part of the REMO treaty with the UK and other countries of the world.

Or hopefully I am totally wrong and you can kindly give me the contact of the correct office to contact and claim maintenance as his father has run away and RETIRED to your country.

Thanking you kindly

Ms JW

Hello Ms JW,

The short answers are, no, I can’t explain it but can only speculate on it, and, yes, I can direct you to sources of the information you seek.  However, there is also a more fundamental question that you perhaps should have asked but did not.  Why do laws exist that force expunged parents (usually fathers) to pay for “crimes” they did not commit, for children whom they cannot see, and for divorces they did not want or deserve?

Here are the long answers.

I neither reside in Quebec nor speak French.  Therefore I am not very familiar with child-support enforcement rules in Quebec and  don’t have precise and certain answer to your questions, but it appears to me that Canada has a reciprocal agreement with the UK, in relation to the enforcement of the collection of child support.  I do not know that Quebec is exempt from that international agreement.

If Quebec is not part of that agreement, that could be because family- and divorce law in English-speaking Canada and in Quebec evolved differently over time.  In English-speaking Canada, jurisprudence is based on English Common Law, while in Quebec, jurisprudence is based on the Code Napoleon.  That the evolution of family laws diverged somewhat in various portions of Canada is entirely possible and even a fact, as those laws are largely provincial and not federal matters.

However, that there is a difference such as that which concerns you seems somewhat incongruous.  With the aid of lavish and enormously generous government funding derived from taxes paid by all Canadian income earners who were generally totally unaware of the socially destructive unconstitutional laws with which they were about to be hit, the domination and control of Canadian jurisprudence by father- and family-hostile law societies and interest groups were foisted on Canada in the 1960s (e. g.: “no-fault” divorce against the wishes of the other partner in an ostensibly life-long contract, and the legalization of extortion for the financing of the filching of the children of the non-custodial parent - usually the father).

Quebec jurisprudence is even more rabidly father- and family-hostile than is the case in English-speaking Canada and other developed nations.  It is incomprehensible that the feminist interest groups and the feminist lawmakers that drive the increasingly totalitarian, anti-family family laws in Canada would have overlooked Quebec as a source of profit to be derived from reciprocal child-support enforcement procedures for the UK and Canada.  Still, it is possible - however unlikely - that the lawmakers (i. e.: legislators) in Quebec refused to be railroaded into the feminist-desired unconstitutional changes to Canadian family law to the extent that such changes were considered and advertised in international agreements for child-support enforcement.  After all, such laws are a nationa shame.

I suggest that you ask your lawyer the question of why it would be that Quebec is exempt and that you change lawyers if he hasn’t got the answer.

Failing that, you may wish to direct your inquiries to some family-rights organizations in Quebec, although the best avenue of success would probably be to go directly to the Quebec government or to the Canadian Embassy.  The most obvious agency that should be able to provide you with the information you seek would be the one you should contact through the web page that you perhaps visited already: http://www.csa.gov.uk/en/case/remo.asp

I copied your information request and my answers to some other pro-family and pro-father activists.  Perhaps they will provide more precise information.

Permit me to ask questions.  Did either you or your ex-husband break your marriage contract against the objections of the other parent of your children?  After separation and divorce, did you regularly and equitably share access to and custody of your children?

If your separation and divorce were the outcome of a mutual agreement between you and him, and if child access and -custody were shared equitably while the father was still present in the UK, then there was really no need for a child-support order.  There would then not even have been any motivation for the father of your children to “avoid paying child support [and to] emigrate” to Canada, right?  After all, what motivation would there be to escape from something that doesn’t exist?

It appears to me that the father of the children you had by him quite possibly and naturally tried to escape the paying of extortion money for goods and services he can’t enjoy.

Regards,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Child-Custody Awards, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child Abduction | Print | No Comments »

April 7, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Dr. Albert Mohler’s blog features an entry today that is very favorable of Stephen Baskerville’s book “Taken into Custody”, a damning expose of the widespread corruption in the government-designed and -run divorce industry: a conglomerate of racketeering involving not only legislators, judges, prosecutors, social workers, police and bureaucrats but also a host of private-industry adjuncts to the government’s sector of the divorce industry, namely: child-support enforcement and similar agencies (in whom many politicians have a vested interest); psychologists; psychiatrists; mediators; lawyers; bar associations; law societies; universities; journalists; reporters and other interests in the media, and so on.

As Professor Stephen Baskerville describes in his book, all of those parties, especially those connected with the family-court system, conspire to intrude and insert themselves into families - even into the most intimate parts of family life - to expunge loving fathers from their families and their children’s lives, to apprehend and control children for the purpose of financially and emotionally devasting fathers (but not exclusively just fathers), to control women (for example, so as to dictate to women that they must choose between being married to the fathers of their children or to lose their children).

“Taken into Custody provides overwhelming evidence that a major reason for the existence and cancerous growth of what Dr. Albert Mohler calls the “Divorce Industrial Complex,” is the overwhelming greed and corruption that permeates the divorce industry.

“Taken into Custody” was popular from the time the first printing was released in the summer of 2007, but even now, quite a few months later, its popularity and appeal are still growing.  Last night the reader reviews at amazon.com for “Taken into Custody” numbered 37. This morning their number had increased to 41, all of them favorable and five-star rated. The most remarkable thing about those reviews is that amongst them is not a single one written by a family- or father-hostile feminist.  Just a few years ago that would have been unimaginable, while a dozen years ago Stephen Baskerville would have had a very serious problem with finding a publisher willing to produce and distribute his book.

The vast majority of the reader reviews originated in the USA, but quite a few are from reviewers in other countries, such as the U.K., Sweden, Australia and one with an origin identified as “International”.

There is apparently as of yet no review by a Canadian reader. I should have written one, but have not yet finished reading the book, having received it, finally, and after two inexplicably failed attempts, just a couple of days ago.  I will make up for my missing review as soon as I am through reading “Taken into Custody.”

The fundamental issues discussed in “Taken into Custody” are not exclusive to the USA.  They are endemic of all English-speaking nations (as Stephen Baskerville identified with numerous examples and citations pertaining to many of those nations).  Still, they are applicable to - to mention a few such nations other than the USA - Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the countries of the former Soviet block, India, Japan, Egypt, Spain, Italy, France, Holland, Germany, Canada, South Africa, and so on.  The preceding list of countries is based on what is being reported to and discussed with me by fathers and by pro-father- and pro-family activists from around the world.

If you haven’t yet obtained a copy of “Taken into Custody”, get one, and you will find out that - if you dare to dream of having a family - civil rights and liberties are only an illusion.  You will also find out that families make up the fabric of society, and that society is being destroyed when governments engage on a deliberate war designed to rip families apart.

As I am reading “Taking into Custody,” I cannot help but feel that the views I have held for years are confirmed.  We managed in the ostensibly “free” West to install absolute totalitarianism by the government bureaucracy.

Posted in Shared Parenting, Men's Issues, Divorce, Media Bias, Child-Custody Awards, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child Abduction | Print | No Comments »