Fathers 4 Justice UK Strikes Again
June 9th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Fatherhood activists Jolly Stainesby and Mark Harris launched a highly-publicized protest on the roof of Labor deputy leader Harriet Harman's house. Harman is Secretary of State for Equalities and Minister for Women and has helped block family law reform. According to the BBC:
A fathers' rights campaigner is maintaining his rooftop protest at the London home of Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman.
Jolly Stainesby, of south Devon, spent the night under a tarpaulin, observed by the occupants of three police cars.
Mr Stainesby began the protest at the minister's house in Herne Hill, south London, on Sunday with Mark Harris - who later came down and was arrested.
Ms Harman has decided to leave her home until the protest ended.
Mr Stainesby said the rooftop protest could go on for some time.
Speaking earlier, he said: "I'm not coming down until they free my mate Mark. He is still being held."
Mr Harris was held on suspicion of criminal damage, causing a public nuisance and other offences.
The campaigners, who are dressed as mythical superheroes "Captain Conception" and "Cash Gordon", had said they intended to remain at the property until the former minister of justice read Mr Harris's book, Family Court Hell.
They also unfurled a banner reading: "A father is for life, not just conception".
Ms Harman, who is also Secretary of State for Equalities and Minister for Women, said the men had not requested a meeting.
Fathers 4 Justice founder Matt O'Connor said the government had "refused all dialogue with F4J for the past two years" and the group would now resume "a full-scale campaign of direct action against the government, its ministers and the judiciary".
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said the government had carried out a public consultation on improving the openness of family courts.
He added: "This is an important and complex area of policy about which people have strong views. We must ensure we get it right."
I applaud this action, though not without a few misgivings, which I detail below. I'm glad to see F4J UK back in action.
To briefly recap, the group is the brainchild of Matt O'Connor, and it began a series of daring, highly publicized protests atop cranes, bridges, and government buildings in 2003. The group's first well-known protest was David Chick's spectacular six day, one man protest atop a 150 foot high crane near the Tower Bridge in London. The protest snarled traffic for miles and reportedly cost businesses an estimated £50 million. Chick protested because he was unlawfully cut off from his toddler daughter. He had been to court 25 times and spent the equivalent of $30,000 in unsuccessful attempts to get English courts to enforce his visitation rights.
The image of a man so desperate that he would risk his life and risk prison to be with the little girl he loves moved millions. Polls showed that Chick was very popular, and he was acquitted by an English jury, some of whom were reportedly moved to tears by his testimony. To learn more, see his website http://spidermandad.com/.
Stainesby, one of this new protest's leaders, has done numerous high-profile actions. Ironically, he is a registered child care provider and is thus allowed to care for any child in England except his 10-year-old daughter, with whom he is allowed little contact.
The group's protests have been scrupulously peaceful. The protesters dressed up in superhero costumes in order to appear less threatening, to inject some humor into their protests, and, as F4J says, because little children often see their dads as superheroes. The group drew enormous and unprecedented publicity to the widespread problem of fathers being pushed out of their children's lives after divorce or separation.
The Up and Down History of F4J
In recent years the group has struggled, for a few reasons:
1) They were unable to convert the media attention they skillfully cultivated into solid family law reform.
2) They were torn by faction fighting.
3) They were widely slandered in 2006 over an imaginary kidnapping plot. At the time I wrote:
"Plot to kidnap Blair's son smashed." "UK police foil plot to kidnap Blair's son." "Scotland Yard uncovers plot to kidnap Blair's son."
These recent headlines and hundreds like them illustrate Mark Twain's assertion that "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." Major media worldwide—including CNN, the Associated Press, the BBC, Fox News, Reuters, and hundreds of newspapers—have reported that extremists tied to the British fathers' rights group Fathers 4 Justice planned to kidnap British Prime Minister Tony Blair's five-year-old son Leo. Yet subsequent reports reveal that the sensationalized kidnapping "plot" was apparently nothing more than drunken pub chattering among a couple fools and loudmouths who evidently didn't realize they were being monitored. Not a single arrest has been made.
Nevertheless, this non-incident is and will for many years be used to portray the fathers' movement as violent extremists. It is certainly true that fathers' groups do attract a lunatic fringe. It is also true that there are divorced dads within the movement who…well, let's just say it's not hard to see why they're divorced. But most fathers' activists are decent, loving dads who can't quite believe that the family law system so readily allowed them to be driven out of the lives of the children who love them and need them.
To learn more, see Something smells very fishy about the 'Leo kidnap plot' (The Daily Telegraph, 1/20/06).
My Misgivings
As I've noted before, for a variety of reasons I don't like it when protesters target judges' homes or their ex-wives' homes, and it isn't generally done. For one, these confrontations can turn violent, as almost happened when Stainesby protested on a judge's roof previously and the judge pulled out a shotgun and pointed it at him. Two, it drags in the target's family and children. Three, it gives the target of the protest the opportunity to go into a big "I'm so frightened of these awful men" act, which generally plays well in the press. This is particularly true when the judge or official targeted is a woman, as in this case.
Still, I think we have to acknowledge that there's a difference between doing this kind of thing in the United States--a very violent society--and in England. From what I understand, this type of thing is seen as far less threatening there than it would be here. (Apparently when the judge pointed the shotgun at Stainesby he called F4J leader Matt O'Connor, who helpfully told him, "Make sure you get a picture of him pointing the gun at you.")
I wouldn't recommend this type of protest in the US, but I'll defer to the UK F4J's judgment about doing it there.
F4J's Future
I don't know if after this protest F4J will be able to overcome some of the problems which have plagued them, but I hope they do. I've been fortunate enough to have the opportunity to get to know O'Connor and Stainesby fairly well, and I respect them both.
To learn more about Fathers 4 Justice, click here and here. (Note: for some reason Stainesby's name seems to be spelled differently each time he does a protest. I suggest readers also look for "Stainesby.")
Late Note: How to Support the Protesters
English activist Steve Bayliss just sent out the following:
Please write to the BBC -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/feedback/default.stm
We need people supporting Jolly on the ground at Harman's house and calling Walworth Police Station where Mark has been held for 24 hours now!!!
Walworth Police Station
323 Borough High Street,
Borough: Southwark
SE1 1JR View Map (launches a new window)
Telephone: 020 7378 1212
2nd Telephone: Textphone Number for Hard of Hearing: 020 7232 6013
Additional Information
Service Availability: Open 24 hours a day
Transport: Trains: Elephant and Castle, Borough ; Bus route(s): 12, 35, 40,
45, 68, 148, 168, 171, 468
"));
19 queries. 0.370 seconds.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
How can we change the laws in US? We will have to change the laws in the parliament. If majority of the people support the change it will be done.
Politicians are not for Men or Women; they enact laws that will get them more votes. They will not pass any Equality laws because they will win few thousand Men’s votes but lose millions of Women votes. If on the other hand by supporting a different Men’s cause they get say 100K Men votes and lose 10K Women votes they will certainly pass the law.
Option 1: Contest the election under a party (say ABC) directly in the presidential election. If we get say 2-5M votes that is enough to push for change in the parliament. If we do not have 2-5M votes then majority of the people do not need a change. Since this is democracy there will not be any change. Laws are not made because they are good or bad but because it has a support of majority or a big chunk of citizens.
if we do not have 2-5M votes we should work together to get those votes.
Option 2: Put the change (like joint custody) in the ballet (like Michigan are doing for this Nov election) in all the states. We get 50%+ votes politicians will have to make the change. And it will be done in few months.
What am I missing? Why are we not uniting and pushing for one of these two options? What are protesting or debating at all?
The very fact that this condition is so for so many years tells me that we are not intelligently trying to solve it.
Democracy - get 2 to 5 or 10 M votes and the change will be done. Period.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
"For one, these confrontations can turn violent, as almost happened when Stainesby protested on a judge's roof previously and the judge pulled out a shotgun and pointed it at him."
The judge wasn't under threat of violence. I'm sure he knew of the group. Really it speaks volumes about the judge.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Nice article, only information missing is some backgounrd on Ms Harman.
1. She is the deputy leader of the Labour party so extremely high profile.
2. She is also the "Minister for Women and Equality" - that's the actual job title. Obviously we have no Minister for Men and Equality.
3. Just last week she said how the increase in divorce and separated families was a good thing.
4. She co-authored a paper title "The Family Way" which criticised mothers who stay at home and questioedn whether having Fathers as part of the family "is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion".
5. She is a very prominent feminist and has voted against every single piece of Father friendly legislation .
So in summary this isn't just some random politician who's home they have invaded - if there was an Iraq style set of F4J most wanted playing cards she'd be the Ace of Spades. They really have hit the jackpot - many congratulations to them.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
For the best interest of children, I applaud the actions of Fathers 4 Justice. Children Need Two Parents!
June 9th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Here's a link to the wikipedia article on Harriet Harman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Harman
Dislike of Fathers and the Family Unit
In 1990 Harman co-authored a report entitled "The Family Way". It criticised the family unit and mothers who stay at home. In particular it questioned whether men were an asset to families at all and whether "the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion". Critics such as Erin Pizzey described such statements as a "staggering attack on men and their role in modern life".
June 9th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Did these guys give up on protesting in the U.S.? I wouldn't blame them after that fiasco in D.C.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Although they are clever, do you think that dressing up in costumes hurts their chances in a courtroom?
June 10th, 2008 at 3:10 am
I don't think that the costumes hurt them at all, and like Glenn said it does make them seem less threatening.
However, this particular protest may backfire as Ms. Harman will doubtless play the damsel-in-distress being forced out of her house by the big bad scary men. (So much for feminists being role models of empowerment).
Since she wields a LOT of power, and has a vested interest in the status quo, there's no payoff in her learning anything positive from this protest. If anything they've just pissed her off and entrenched her misandrist views even more. Shame on Prime Minister Gordon Brown for appointing her - he's the one whom F4JUK should be targeting.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:37 am
There is a little piece of hell reserved just for Harriet. She has earned it.
Harmon is just a little taste of feminism in power. Her bigotry is an embarassment to the UK.
jeana wants us to think she is the face of feminism while women like Harmon demonstrate exactly what we could expect from feminists in power. And Harriet is not alone. I corresponded with the feminist leader of the Democrats Party - Lyn Allison - during the Australian federal election last year. When asked if she would represent all constituents equally regardless of gender she shamelessly admitted that mens issues could go to hell until ALL the womens issues SHE wanted addressed were fully dealt with. If you were a male in her electorate she would be reluctant to represent you because of your gender! Just over a year ago feminist Attorney General in Tasmania, Judy Jackson, when asked about men being imprisoned on allegations alone AND without even a hearing responded "They're only men".
That, jeana, is the feminism WE have to deal with. Not the idealised fraud you seem to believe constitutes feminism.
Feminists claim male politicians only act in the interests of men. They "know" this precisely because that is exactly the way they act and think themselves.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Apologies. Harriet's surname is "Harman".
June 10th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Glenn wrote: "Two, it drags in the target's family and children."
Hopefully, that reality stings a little... for what the judiciary and those who operate within it do to "the target's" (father's) family and children is far more sinister than what F4J puts these people's families through.
Unfortunately, I have serious doubts about the actual impact of just such a lesson.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Come on Glen; now we need to fear the esteemed judges doing violence? Has our insane pro female laws passed by Congress devalued human life to this extent? Yes
June 10th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Gwallan:
“jeana wants us to think she is the face of feminism while women like Harmon demonstrate exactly what we could expect from feminists in power”
Gwallan, there are women in power (and some of them feminists) who do not want to crush men. A few women who are anti-men (not saying that Harmon is; I only have to go on what I see here) do not represent all of us. Just like anti-women men don’t represent the views of all men. If you guys don’t want her, then do what you can to get rid of her. (Just don't get rid of all of us.)
“I corresponded with the feminist leader of the Democrats Party - Lyn Allison - during the Australian federal election last year. When asked if she would represent all constituents equally regardless of gender she shamelessly admitted that mens issues could go to hell until ALL the womens issues SHE wanted addressed were fully dealt with.”
I can’t believe “that mens issues could go to hell” is actually what someone would say! Isn’t Australia pretty conservative? Did that Judy Jackson actually say, “They’re only men”? Why would someone say that? They have male constituents. It doesn’t make sense.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:21 am
The women's suffrage movement, as it was called back then, never got off the ground despite many years of letter-writing, meeting with politicians and otherwise tamely working within the system. Not until suffragettes began demonstrating, getting thrown in jail and going on hunger strikes did politicians pay attention. It's also worth noting that they recruited an accomplished, good-looking woman with a spotless reputation to serve as a figurehead for the movement.
Men can learn from this. I believe we need utterly nonviolent civil disobedience. I believe we need to be jailed and go on hunger strikes. And I believe we need a Martin Luther King, a Gandhi, a Mandela or some other charismatic person who can excite sympathy from the general public. When a man who is totally above reproach and who the general public likes is seen as suffering due to inaction from legislators, then we'll see some movement on these issues.
This guy sure as hell isn't me, by the way. I am a large athletic type with a shaved head and what I'm told is a forbidding demeanor in some situations. I've been through anger management. We don't need somebody like that. What we need is a cross between Mr. Rogers and Brad Pitt in appearance and charm, and somewhere between Jesus and Mother Teresa as far as his rap sheet.
Then again, maybe looks aren't as important as being generally simpatico. Consider Rosa Parks.
Can we recruit some people from the black civil rights movement to show us the nonviolent civil disobedience way? Trying to approach this rationally with statistics and studies and letter-writing campaigns is moving very slowly. If we can grab in mass the common people's heartstrings -- read: votes -- politicians will act instantly if not sooner.
What do you think?
Mark
June 10th, 2008 at 11:58 am
I laughed when I saw this, it's great to see these guys back in action. I hate Harman. She has the gall to call herself minister for 'equalities' which presumably aknowledges that there are various forms of discrimination, yet focuses only on women. Not only this, she has done the exact opposite of her job description in blocking attempts at equality from men.
Oh and jeana, while certainly not all women in power are anti-men (Thatcher certainly wasn't, unless those men were miners) yet ALL feminists seen in power ARE. I would be astounded if you can find me a feminist in power who has done anything for men's rights and considers them equal to women's rights.
Harman passed the law (without a vote in Parliament somehow, still not sure how they did this) that makes calling a woman love a crime. But only if you are a man. A woman can call a man or another woman darling, love, sweetheart and any other number of things. The moment a man does the same he is oppressing her.
Harman is definitely anti-male.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I for once disagree with glenn completley. I want to be clear.... if a person kidnapps your child whether legal or not and its unjust you should do whatever you feel will raise attention to the plight of your legally kidnapped child. Yes America is a violent society and it will stay that way until we get back to requiring parenting not allowing the option. Besides the first offense was by the court, operating above the constitution in a nation slated to equality removing children daily from a fit moms or dads. Before I got involved in the movement my father who protested actively in the civil rights movement made a point. "Your plight is pointless unless you are willing to pay the cost of change.". Folks we never asked a court to remove kids from thier parents and its is largely my belief that noone cares until they feel your pain from injustice.
Will peaceful scaling of the houses of those taking your children end in violence.... of course at times... just as in peaceful marches of the civil rights turned into stonings with bricks and bottles. African Americans would still be under segregation if we let fear drive how peacefully express our horrors.
My children are mine and thier mothers... should I go crazy or she and use a court to hurt the kids taking them from thier loving mother or father then they who empowered it to occur can count on a repercution. The repurcution is largely based on how I feel at that time, as we see ever day in the states.
The KKK and skinheads turned peaceful protests into violent ones because it was allowed. They failed because they were not feared especially by the white marchers who were singled out. I love my kids and I'm not crazy but I am a parent who means it when I say I will do anything for my children that I feel will help them or prevent other children from suffering the lose of a parent. These parent aren't insane... they like children reared in bad neighborhoods are made criminal not born.
Never stop creatively expressing your plight as long as you can accept whatever comes with it. If being shot by a judge on his house brings attention to child trafficking by some judges with CSE and forces it into the mainstream media for change. Then my life is a very small price to pay compared to the speculated 13,000 parental suicide yearly post family court. I'm Christian my life is not mine to keep nor give.
Kenyatte Hay
June 10th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
The very name "Fathers 4 Justice" begs the reader to ask the question "just how bad is it over there?" Pretty bad apparently. The Brits seem to have a style all their own that I personally hope never makes it to our shores (...or perhaps it's already here under a different name ? ) ...Ministry of women and equality ?? Words mean things fellehs & with a name like that it assumes that women as a gender are "entitled to" a ham-fisted government agency to do their leaderships bidding. Britan's been around how long now & has yet to disover that "Equal protection under the law" means there's no "need for" nor "room for" special privileges for anyone least that empowered groups privileges come at the cost of another that the law is obliged to equally protect...assumeing that it ever functioned as designed...equal protection is absolute & people like Ms. Harman would never be empowered for any reason. This would be a non-starter were it not for those 5 words "In the best interest of" which allows governments to induldge in any criminality they wish. Ms. Harman is a member of the Labor Party is she not ? The Labor Party is the UK equalivent of the Liberal Party here in America (aka: Democrats & now way too many Republicans too...) So I think F4J as well as a good many of us here in the states can sum it up to this common thread...Liberalism is the enemy.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Great to F4J back in action!
June 10th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Fathers 4 Justice is in America, and the next protest is going on this friday June 13th in almost all US state capitols. Ive been to protests in DC and can only blaim our economy in making such protests "flops". Not only that but the media fails to report successful protests properly for some reason or another (i have my assumptions, but thats for another forum). Honestly, how many people can take a day off of work to pay to go to DC??? Cost of living is up so drastically, even if a single father managed fair child support paymentrs he couldnt afford to do something especially living in California or even Colorado. F4J US is seeing the truth in our geographical limitations (England is approximately the size of Pennsylvania), and is now focusing on state specific groups. All have their own leaders, but the same agenda: EQUALITY. There are factions in almost every state, and if not, there is ways to apply to become a state leader on the national website www.f4j.us . One of the first comments on this blog asks: How can we change the laws in US? Its simple enough as contacting your legislators and getting active in your area. You wouldnt beleive how many people come out of the woodwork after they see that someone is doing something positive. Also many civil rights unions support shared parenting since this is such an issue. We are guaraunteed our inalienable rights by our constitution, and the supreme court has repeatedly made rulings in favor of fathers as far back as 1910 and as recently as 1986. Most citing the 14th and 9th amendments as well as our right to pursue happieness by being involved parents. So basically our laws are already in place in support of shared parenting. Its unfortunate though some people need it written in black and white.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
@ tweesdad - I'm not a big fan of Brown , but he was put in a cleft stick position by Labour making Harman deputy leader - putting in this position was the least he could do , given that he could have made her Deputy PM or one of the three great offices of state . Word is that Brown loathes Harman himself , although she hasn't yet fixed it for his wife to dump him and stop him seeing his kids.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Mark Harris' story isn't new, but this is a recent account of it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1025359/Justice-4-father-says-daughter-rooftop-protester.html
June 10th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Tom K Says:
"What am I missing? " I'm sure you meant the question to be rhetorical, but the answer is quite a bit! First, we don't have a parliament in the United States, meaning that we don't have a parliamentary form of government! Second, and this is a mistake taught in our government schools, we do not live in a democracy, but in a republic, as Jefferson noted when asked!
As to the meat of the discussion, the judges AND the lawyers need to be confronted directly and exposed for the bottom feeding scum that they are. F4J's methods are one way of accomplishing this. Simply playing their game bye their rules, as you suggest doing, is not working.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
"From this day to the ending of the world, we in it shall be remembered. We lucky few, we band of brothers. For he who today sheds his blood with me shall be my brother." - Henry V
June 10th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Perry Mason: "From this day to the ending of the world, we in it shall be remembered. We lucky few, we band of brothers. For he who today sheds his blood with me shall be my brother." - Henry V
Well said.
I would be honored to call Mr. Stainesby and Mr. Harris my brothers.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
@jeana...
Some background...
Judy Jackson was asked a question during a press conference relating to the imprisonment of men without hearing and based on allegation alone. At the time there were over a hundred in that situation in Tasmania. Concurrent with this our TV stations were showing ads starring multiple murderer, gangster and thug Mark "Chopper" Read threatening to break the necks of "women bashers" while inside. Read had spent most of his prison time in Tasmania in some of the same prisons holding those hundred. Jackson's response was as I stated.
My exchange with Allison occurred during our federal election campaign late last year. She was a ten year senator and leader of our third largest party. I wrote in response to her press release which demanded women vote for her because of her gender. The purpose of my correspondence was actually to alert her to the potential tactical pitfalls in her approach. While I have paraphrased her response the gist is true. Mens issues don't matter until all womens issues are dealt with to her satisfaction. It was in response to a question as to whether or not she would treat ALL her constituents equally. Instead of simply answering "yes" she attempted to justify her own prejudices. She prevaricated just as you frequently do.
jeana these women and many others like them are the public face of feminism. They influence systems and institutions in your name. As I have said numerous times previously feminists have proven they will administer in exactly the way they assert - falsely - that men have done. To the benefit of their own gender alone and with complete gender exclusivity. I have no problems with women entering politics. My cousin is a minister in my state's government and I have nothing but admiration for the incredible work she has put in to achieve this. On the other hand feminists should be barred with extreme prejudice.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Sam
Thanks for letting me know you guys are still in the U.S. That's very encouraging. When I referred to the protest in D.C. as a "fiasco", I wasn't faulting F4J, but instead the police for their "overly-agressive" post-9/11 tactics. You guys better be careful though. No matter how bad things get for fathers in England, the overall impression I get is people in that country are more easy-going (when it comes to protest antics) than people in the U.S., where everyone is really uptight like it's 1984 or something.
I whole-heartedly support the "civil disobedience" methods being used.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:55 am
Sam Ross,
You post: "Fathers 4 Justice is in America, and the next protest is going on this friday June 13th in almost all US state capitols."
Can you cite a web page providing specifics?
G_R