Well, it's hardly the disbanding of the Justice League, but...
I see that Fathers 4 Justice (an organization I briefly noted back in June of '04) has decided to officially cease operations.
The organization was formed three years ago to bring attention to the plight of fathers who had been denied access to their children by the courts for various reasons. Their tactics were to dress up as superheroes and pull publicity stunts - generally of the climbing a building and unfurling a banner type.
As one can easily imagine, while some - perhaps even many - of the fathers involved were the subject of some degree of unfair discrimination by the courts, some others were simply bad eggs who the courts were well-justified in blocking from their children. People who probably became even worse once they put on a costume.
Despite having expelled 30 members last year due to their extremist stances the organization still found itself tarred by the reports that fringe members planned to abduct the 5 year old son of Prime Minister Tony Blair in order to gain attention. One has to wonder at the altered state of consciousness going on behind that line of thought.In the face of such negative public attention Matt O'Connor, founding member of the group, decided it was best to hang up the cowls and tights.
Comments
Playing completely within the system, trying to play it as quiet and sedate as possible, feeding currency to lawyers to get some of them nowhere, slowly and expensively... that doesn't sound like a sane path. Drawing attention through colorful, nonviolent protest doesn't strike me as an awful alternative.
Certainly, each case has to be decided on its own merits, but at least the F4J side detects a built-in gender bias in the court decisions made in the UK and Canada. Automatically treating someone as if he's a bear based solely on gender should be seen as an unjust bias. I've met many pleasant, gentle men and many beastly, horrid women. There are some men I'd trust with my children and some women I wouldn't trust to mind a goldfish for an evening.
The "UK & Canada" note may be an important distinction, as we're in the U.S. and thinking in terms of our courts and laws.
The most telling paragraph, for me at least, from their introduction is:
"All children, their parents and grandparents have inalienable rights to enjoy a meaningful, loving relationship with each other woven into our social fabric for over 6,000 years. Parliament's express intention in the 1989 Children's Act was exactly this yet the child's best interest principle has now effectively become the mothers best interest. A recent judgement by Lord Justice Thorpe severing contact between a child and her father gave the green light to recalcitrant mothers that they could veto contact between children and their fathers if this made them 'anxious or depressed.' So why is the Lord Chancellor's Department failing to uphold the will of Parliament? Why is it failing families? Why is it failing our children and grandchildren?"
This indicates a precedent that's being abused. Essentially, in order to protect some women and children from abusive husbands/fathers the women are given an easily-triggered clause. In effect, the law presumes that all men are... circus bears who could turn savage at any moment. Accordingly it hands the women a rifle loaded with tranquilizer darts, which can be used completely at the woman's discretion so long as she claims to be made either anxious or depressed by thoughts of contact between father and children.
Certainly, any system is open to abuse, and this apparently is intended to prevent violent incidents by restraining all the most likely suspects and who knows how many others. The question in the end is whether or not this is the best solution to a sticky problem. Should an unknown number of innocent people be barred from contact with their children in order to prevent an unknown number of violent incidents?
I have no problem with fathers seeing and/or raising their children. I think I'm actually a pretty good example of trying to work this out. That aside, it's been my personal experience that often-times information is misinterpreted or skewed in an attempt to "rally the troops". Certainly, their own website indicates that they have extremist factions within their own ranks.
I'm just saying that I'd like to see more evidence that their plight is as desperate as they make it seem.
I do not believe that lawyers act in anyone's best interest but their own, but it's the system that we, as a society, have set in place. And while I've seen a great many children placed with female parents who were incapable of raising them, I have seen a HUGE shift in father's parental rights...at least in this country...in the past 10 years. Perhaps, it's a matter of Canada and the UK catching up with us in that regard. I have no firsthand info on how things are handled there.
My contention about this organization then, is virtually the same as it is now, mental stability is a big plus in winning custody. While donning a costume and climbing atop a tower to promote your cause doesn't necessarily make you mentally unstable, it certainly doesn't help make a case for the reverse. The antics strike me as being more to garner the support of the children and they, unfortunately, aren't usually the ones in power to make the decisions.
I do not, however, in any way, want to be mistaken as advocating any premise that bars men from contact with their children by virtue, solely, of anatomical features.