May 2, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Any man who believes in that feminist-inspired hoax is in for a rude awakening.

The following article is a slightly edited version of one that was posted to the F4L mailing list 2003 10 07.

You may have seen the last part of this message already, maybe not, because my copy of the message containing that, which I posted very early this morning, hasn’t come back to me yet. Perhaps the snoopers aren’t done with it yet. If that’s the case, I hope they enjoy what they read. Still, the delay puzzles me. I’m not even on the hit-list of Status of Women Canada.

The preamble in the following is a commentary I used to introduce the forwarded statistics to someone who is not on this list. I hope it sweetens things a bit if you should receive the statistics a second time now. If you wish to forward the message, go ahead. It contains no secrets that need to be guarded.

The issues of concern in this article relate to unhappiness caused by controlling and violent women in marriages that never broke up.

The appended statistics relate to the consequences of men’s status and position of “power” in society. They show that women are not stepping up to the plate in equitable numbers. The problems inherent in the forwarded statistics and explained in the related web pages were not caused just by feminists all by their lonesome selves.

It wasn’t even just feminists and women who caused those problems. If things are to change for the better, men have to come to acknowledge a major share of the guilt.

I wonder how many men permanently damaged their backs by living up to the Hollywood stereotype that carries a bride across the threshold. However, that is only a small one of many manifestations of the problem.  A multitude of methods have been devised and are being used by which men’s backs are being broken, literally and figuratively.

One of my friends led a down-trodden existence for the duration of his long marriage. He pampered and coddled his wife and became a total slave to her and their two boys, because she was given to having frequent heart attacks. I must have heard at least 30 times during the last 25 years that she had only six months left to live.

She could produce “heart attacks” at will – no kidding – and used them rigorously to get her way. The consequence was that she literally exercised and shaped only her bottom by permanently sitting on it and from that throne firmly controlled all other family-members’ activities and minds.

Full Story

Posted in Health, Men's Issues, Family, Child Abduction | 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 30, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

By Marty Nemko

What do the following people have in common: Aristotle, Plato, Jesus, Leonardo da Vinci, Beethoven, Monet, the Wright Brothers, Jonas Salk, Steven Spielberg, 98% of the Nobel Prize Winners for science, the key scientists behind the development of every drug from aspirin to breast cancer breakthrough Herceptin, from anesthetic to heart bypass surgery, from refrigeration to heating, from the electric light bulb to the radio, the television, the computer, and the mapping of human genome? They’re all men.

And in the five decades since the women’s movement began, 97% of science, 92% of literature, and 100% of economic Nobel Laureates still are men….(Full Story)

Posted in Media Bias, Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, Feminism | Print | No Comments »

April 24, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Hello Tom (I presume),

Your inquiry, re: Father-custody - outcomes in children of divorce

Thanks for your phone call.

I am not commenting here in a specifically constructive manner, as far as the topic of interest to you is concerned. All I am doing here is to copy-and-paste a few of many relevant references listed or otherwise shown at http://fathersforlife.org. To be more specific would require many hours, even days of work. Sorry, but I cannot do that for you. I only have the time to point you into the general direction for the right information. (However, I am giving you a few items of general advice.)

You can find these and many other related references by using the search input field at the upper right-hand corner of virtually every web page at http://fathersforlife.org. The search string to enter is:

outcome children father-custody

Here goes:

• The case for Father-Custody
  By Daniel Amneus, Ph.D.
  The Case for Father-Custody is a well-researched and valuable source of information and statistics relating to fatherlessness. The book is accessible as a an easily navigable PDF file at Fathering Magazine

[The end notes in that book are an excellent source for citations relating to what you need for your case. The book itself contains many excellent quotes (see end notes for citations) that will provide you with exactly what you are looking for. Although the book is a bit dated, the information it contains is still true. –WHS]

• The following is a collections of links to more articles and study reports that focus on father absence or fatherlessness.

• Effects on children of removing a father from the life of a child., Center for Children’s Justice

• The Consequences of Fatherlessness — The [US] National Center for Fathering

• Effects of Fatherlessness on Children – Social Consequences.
  Statement of Bill Wood and Jay Gell, Children’s Legal Foundation, Charlotte, North Carolina

• National Review: Fatherlessness: The Root Cause: The link between crime and fatherlessness is astonishing, By Dave Kopel, Independence Institute

• Turning the Corner on Father Absence in Black America, A Statement from the Morehouse Conference on African-American Fathers; Washington, June 16,1999

• Fatherlessness is the greatest social problem in Canada, Canadian Children’s Rights Council

• THE FACTS ON FATHERLESSNESS, Prepared for the Fatherhood Foundation by Bill Muehlenberg, Australian Family Association - August 2002

• Transforming the Culture of Fatherlessness, by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, Acton President

• Boston Globe: The black rebellion against fatherlessness, By Eugene F. Rivers III | July 9, 2006

• Townhall.com: Fatherlessness A Problem for Kids, Not Mothers, By Maggie Gallagher
  Tuesday, June 12, 2001

  That is a fairly weighty collection of facts and opinions regarding fatherlessness. It is important to note that even the U.K. lately joined the choir singing praise of fatherhood, sort of, but nevertheless welcome after more than eight years of continuous slander, vilification and demonization of fathers. Here it is, the first pro-father commentary after about ten years in an official party organ in the U.K.:

thisislondon.co.uk: Married parents are best, admits Blairite think tank

That is all nice and good, although it is obvious that the U.K. is a late-comer in the debate on fatherlessness and may need a while longer to catch on to what is going on in that department.

It seems that Maggie Gallagher deserves the last word on what we should be after.

In the early ’80s, Becky Peck was one of a new generation of women experimenting with what optimists dub alternative family forms. She chose to use an anonymous sperm donor to create a deliberately fatherless household. Just her and her cuddly babies. Sixteen years later, she tracked down the DNA provider, David Ross. After making sure her motives were not financial (i.e. meeting his kids wouldn’t cost him any money), David was thrilled. Instant family — no diapers to change, no college to pay for. What’s not to love?

But why would a woman who chose anonymous sperm donation suddenly decide at that late date to attach a face and a name to the DNA? The kids, of course. In spite of all the love a mother could provide, they still longed for Daddy. Becky never planned on that. Too many women still don’t.

The actress Calista Flockhart, Miss Ally McBeal, adopted a baby. She recently confessed to the New York Post, “I want more children. I guess it would be nice to have a husband, too, and if you know where I might find the right one, let me know. But meanwhile, the baby is all I really want.”

Maybe so. But what does her baby want, or what will he want a year from now? Children’s hearts will keep fracturing until more mothers, especially privileged mothers, recognize that giving their baby everything he needs includes giving him a loving father. That’s the old, stubborn idea of marriage, the place where a man and woman pledge themselves in love, not only to each other, but to their future children.

As President Bush said so bravely and truthfully, “a child’s greatest source of security today is not only knowing ‘my mom loves me’ and ‘my dad loves me,’ but also that Mom and Dad love each other. If we are serious about renewing fatherhood, we must be serious about renewing marriage.”

But wait a minute, that means that what the children need comes first, and that mutual love between the two parents, marriage for life, that is, will be a necessary social obligation for parents! Exactly!!

Children’s hearts will keep fracturing until more mothers, especially privileged mothers, recognize that giving their baby everything he needs includes giving him a loving father.

Those quotes are from the Fatherlessness — Main Page at Fathers for Life.

There is more:

• UN survey on what ails the world’s children — The state of …

  Father custody children were higher in all outcomes (academic achievement and adjustment) than those in mother custody families”

The following google-search will provide more specific returns for the whole Internet (159 entries on the search-return list)

Using a search term that fits what you are specifically looking for reduces that to three entries on the search return list:

The search string: “better outcomes” children “father-custody” “when conflict”

The search returns:

[PDF]
The Future of Children

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML better outcomes. The average for each group of children ….. mother or father custody is. inherently better for children, … www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol4no1ART9.pdf - Similar pages - Note this

JSTOR: Life-Span Adjustment of Children to Their Parents’ Divorce

When conflict between parents is marked, frequent con- tact with the ….. On a few outcomes, children were better off in father-custody households. … links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1054-8289(199421)4%3A1%3C143%3ALAOCTT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W - Similar pages - Note this

[PDF]

Managing the impact of separation and divorce on children …

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
children’s adjustment improves when conflict declines after divorce (Kitzmann & Emery, …… Advantages of father custody and contact for the psychological …
auseinet.flinders.edu.au/files/resources/auseinet/divorce.pdf - Similar pages - Note this

You sounded as if you are pressed for time, but it also seems that you feel that by presenting facts in your favour you can influence the outcome of your custody hearing in your favour. Being pressed for time is real, but the assumption that you will be able to influence the outcome of a custody hearing is largely an illusion. On average, custody decisions are in about nine out of ten cases in favour of the woman. Facts have little, and endemic anti-male bias of the courts everything, to do with that.

I strongly recommend that you read the following book:

Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family

More and purchase information for “Taken Into Custody” at http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/

There is an important thing that you should consider doing. Get in touch with a local fathers rights organization. Here is a directory that you can use to find such an organization near you.

All the best,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Divorce, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, Family | Print | No Comments »

April 23, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Barbara Kay, writing for the National Post, has done it again. She once more exposed massive pro-female and pro-homosexual bias in the mainstream media.

National Post
Barbara Kay: We’re still ignoring abused straight men

Posted: April 22, 2008, 4:38 PM by Marni Soupcoff

Barbara Kay

Heterosexual men can’t catch a break from the media. When they’re aggressors, they’re condemned. When they’re victims, they’re ignored. Conversely, when women — gay or straight — and gay men are victims, they’re pitied. And when they’re aggressors, they’re …hmm … also pitied.

A new study by Statistics Canada confirms what researchers in the field of domestic violence proved years ago: that partner violence amongst same-sex Canadians is significantly higher than amongst heterosexual couples. According to StatsCan, gays and lesbians experience twice the partner abuse of straight couples….

….All women and gay men represent about 60% of our population, but where domestic violence is concerned, together attract 99% of the media’s sympathy and funded outreach. How long will the mainstream media’s unethical double standard in reportage of domestic violence persist?

(Full Story)

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

April 19, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

News.com.au
April 18, 2008 11:54pm

AN ITALIAN man was given a suspended jail sentence for staring too intensely at a woman sitting in front of him on a train.

What was the evidence?   Apparently nothing more than the woman’s uncorroborated assertion.  Read the whole story.

Posted in Men's Issues, The New World Order, Women's Violence | 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 10, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The following comments were sent to a fathers rights activist in response to his assertion that all that is missing for fathers rights organizations to gain political power is to obtain government funding.

George,

All the FR movement lacks is money? I cannot quite agree with that.

Money is the root of all evil, so the saying goes. It would therefore follow that money cannot possibly be the solution to a problem like the lack of inroads made by the FR movement, or can it?

As one of the largest budget items in the federal budget, subsidies to Canadian Natives to solve their woes at roughly $6,800 a year for every native man, woman and child have hardly solved any problems the Canadian Natives suffer from. A few success stories can be mentioned. However, as a whole,

• The life expectancies of our Natives are many years below the Canadian average;
• Their suicide rates are probably the highest of all ethnic groups in the world, higher than those in any of the nations in the world, much higher even than those in the Russian Federation, and about five times higher than the Canadian national average;
• The incident rate of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is about 70 percent in some Native communities;
• Their rates of fatherlessness and infant mortality are higher than the national average;
• The crime and incarceration rates for Natives are ten times higher than the Canadian average; but
• The department of Native and Indian Affairs is a boon for an army of civil servants and even produced a few prime ministers, most notably Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Jean Chretien.

If I were a Native leader and were to observe those dismal outcomes of centuries of Canadian empathy for Natives, I would tell the federal government to go and fly a kite. However, why in the world would FR activist organizations ask for financial assistance by the government? Financial assistance breeds political and economic dependency.

It was not financial assistance from the government that gave political power to feminists. It was political power that enticed the government to provide financial assistance to Natives and to feminism.

How did the Natives gain political power? They demonstrated, closed roads, stopped logging operations, etc.. They also went to universities and studied law at far higher rates than other Canadians did. Political power brought financial and other concessions for natives, but overall that brought benefits only to band councils and to bureaucrats. The few handovers of large areas of Canada did not perceptibly hurt the average Canadian, and all of the concessions made to the Natives helped build the careers of an enormous number of bureaucrats and lawyers, with just about all of the bureaucrats and the vast majority of the lawyers not being Natives. However, the net-”gains” made by Natives were confined to the First Nations and to Native communities. Canadians paid their taxes, and the Native problems hardly ever intruded into their lives.

How did the feminists gain political power? They raised their children (in their image), and they burned their bras. Just as the natives did, they also went to universities and studied law at far higher rates than other Canadians did. They went a bit farther, they began lecturing at universities, and they formed law societies that forced feminist laws upon the judiciary and thereby on all of society. In the process of doing that, they obtained ever escalating financial and legal concessions, but overall that brought benefits only to feminists and to bureaucrats. Those concessions do hurt all Canadians, but, just as with the Natives - only on a much larger scale - feminism helped build the careers of legions of bureaucrats, lawyers, judges, psychologists, lecturers, counselors, mediators, etc.. However, the net-”gains” made by feminists, although confined to women, did nothing for the Canadian economy as a whole and were extremely expensive. Even though Canadians paid their escalating taxes to pay for it all, given that we live in a closed system, men pay the majority of all taxes (about 70 percent) and at best receive 30 percent of all available social benefits, while women pay a small share of all taxes (about 30 percent) while they receive at least 70 percent of all social benefits.

How do men gain political power? They increasingly don’t get to raise their children, and they can at best burn their jockstraps - which latter, moreover, many men don’t ever wear. Besides, compare the public appeal of bras vs. jockstraps, of mammary glands vs. prostate glands and rectums.

One thing is certain, men will not gain financial or any other sort of concessions from the government until they have political power and begin to wield it. The question is not so much what the benefits are that men have to offer - and let there be no mistake, the benefits that men can return for financial and other concessions must be irrefutably good (while feminists never had to offer anything other than the promise to set social injustices for women right). The question is whether a sufficiently large critical mass of men can agree on what men have to offer.

The feminists didn’t have a heck of a lot of money to begin to achieve their progress. Why would men need a lot of money to do something comparable?

One thing is for sure, the liberalism, sexual revolution and women’s liberation promoted by the student revolutions that happened simultaneously throughout the world in 1968 did not happen spontaneously.

…the student revolution of 1968 (brought about, as in all other nations where it happened, through organizational direction by Moscow and funding by Pankow - [a suburb of Berlin] the capital of the GDR - it happened not just in France but in many nations at the same time - e. g.: 1968 in an international context), and then to the world-wide usurpation of power and control by radical feminism - largely by means of the influence of radical feminism on the UN.

All those changes happened through whatever special interest group’s ideology influenced the bureaucracy, controlled it and then had the bureaucracy promote and enforce it. (See Trends of the politics of sex)

Men’s rights and fathers’ right organizations throughout the world ignore history. They ignore it at their own and at all of mankind’s peril.

Posted in Men's Issues, Family, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »

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 »