Human Rights versus Legal Rights

Many of the issues we discuss here on F4E are really human and civil rights. Too often, these terms are used without any real understanding of what they mean.

(These thoughts were sparked by an excerpt from the "Daily India" show )


Much of the 20th century was spent trying to define Human Rights in various documents. Very often, the definitions referred to historical documents which defined Civil Rights within one culture or another (the UK -Magna Carta - or the US Constitution, usually).

For example, Does a father (or mother) have a human right to access to their children?
Intuitively, every person associated with this group would shout: "Yes!"

The idea that a parent doesn't have the right to be a part of their children's lives seems too simple an idea to question.
Why does something so basic have to be questioned? -- Because unless it is defined within the law, the right does not exist. It is not explicitly defined anywhere in the law.
Some people will say that it exists in Common Law, but give me a minute.


Civil Rights are defined by the government. Usually the term, "Civil Rights" refer to a body of practice about how the law is applied.

There is still the letter of the laws themselves.

Effectively, the right of a parent to their children is defined in the laws. Presently, the parents share that responsibility with the state. The laws of Australia define under what circumstances a parent may be a part of their children's lives.
For example, if a parent is abusive, that parent may be removed from their children's lives -- by law.

The state has overridden the intuitive perception that a parent should be a part of their child's life, and taken that responsibility upon themselves.
The state has defined the Civil Rights of the parent and the child.

So where does Common Law come in?
Common Law is based on the history of how laws have been put to use. The intuitive rights of parent are defined in Common Law repeatedly, in every conceivable way. In order to apply Common Law to a question before a court, someone must cite the historical decision (and hope that the opposing counsel has not found a more recent or more similar example.)
Some people will say that Common Law Rights are based on 'common sense', but that isn't true. All it takes is a quick look at the stories on this group to see that.

In effect, Common Law Rights do not exist. Why? Because in the practice of law through history rights have been defined in every conceivable way. The only 'common sense' to it is that rights are defined to suit the politics of the government at the moment.
The Australian papers are full of examples every day: speed cameras used for revenue raising; government corruption; unpopular wars; etc.
The brutal, prejudiced way family law has been implemented is just another example. Unfortunately, this issue does not make the papers often.

In order for rights of any kind to exist in Common Law there must be a legally defined way to exercise those rights. In other words, if there isn't a law, it ain't a right -- human, civil, or otherwise.
And Common Law follows every decision, right or wrong.


The letter of the law depends completely on the goodwill of those who enforce that law. And how people enforce a law depends on the politics at the time, and the general myths of common perception.

My reason for citing the article from the Daily India show is to point out that this is a much larger, international debate that has continued throughout history. The debate has become much more intense during the 20th century.

--Paul

Read more!

(My response to the fathers4equality group on Yahoo. I hadn't asked the respondent for permission, so I deleted their name.)

Well (removed), you just proved you are not the inhuman brute.
The idea that you would be concerned about your ex when she was old says it all. The thought would have never occurred to a abusive selfish brute/child.
(The man had said he was concerned that his ex would be alone and unhappy when she grew old and needed the support of their children. The children were already ejecting her abusive ways.)

I realize that in time (my ex) will have to face the realities of what she's done. And, perhaps someday, the person that she is.

A few times when things were rough, I called different members of her family to tell them what was happening in that house and to ask their advice.
I was trying to keep the issues within the local immediate family. I was asking for help from others in her family because she was brutally abusive day after day. I put it clearly, "The person you deal with is not the one I do.", and gave examples.
Only her aging mother seemed to understand. She told me others in the family had had similar experiences with (my ex).
The rest of the family had no idea how to respond. They just hid in denial.

In time, her family simply turned against me. Each one I asked for advice turned to her for her side of the story, and I have no idea what she told them. I do know that she didn't tell them the truth. -- Not one of them ever came back to me.

You can't really blame them. Abuse is poorly understood even by mental health professionals. (My ex) had a lot of experience as an abuser.
This is a woman who, when she left her ex husband (before me), surprised even her younger son and daughter -- 16 and 13 at the time -- and everyone in the neighborhood. One day she was talking with her ex husband about going in for relationship counselling; the next she just moved out to her brother's. The move shocked everyone.
I think she said one friend knew about it.

As a result of that surprise and I imagine their other experience with (my ex), not one of her neighbors came to hear her side of the breakup. She had lived in that house for 23 years.
Someday her kids and her family will realize what and who she really is, and then they will turn from her. It's truly sad.

Happily, I won't be around to see it. I don't even want to see her or her family again.
With one reservation: I would happily see her and her daughter put in jail for what they did. I would go to court to testify and put them away.
But that's a level of justice this country will not reach for a while.

--Paul

Read more!

Abusers, Abused and Victims.

(I originally posted this to the fathers4equality Yahoo group in response to a comment about the changing definitions of Abuse in Australian law, 28 April 2006.)

I've done a lot of research into abusive relationships because of what I've gone through.


The legal meaning of 'abuse' has been redefined repeatedly over the last decade or so in Australia. You will find a few pages about it in the Victorian Law Reform documents on the group, and in the testimony supporting the Equal Parenting debate.

One of the keys to recognizing an Abuser is the need for secrecy.
The Abuser is aware that their behaviour is not acceptable, so they will try to hide it. Abusive people are often well-liked in their jobs and even a circle of friends. The Abuser will always be nice and polite in public, but their behaviour changes dramatically in private.
It is a false sense of "keeping it in the family", since the Abuser is putting on a false front. S/he is manipulating the perceptions of others, even within the same household, that s/he is just "a nice person." Honest emotional reactions be being abused will be seen as abusive by others.
It may sound impossible or ridiculous that this can be acccomplished within a home, but this is an aspect of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS).

To begin, you have to realize that abuse is addictive, not only for the Abuser, but for the Abused. It is probably best classed as Personality Disorder, meaning it may be treatable with counselling without drugs, as simply a habit -- like smoking, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, or overeating.
I'm using those examples because none of those habits are easy to break. Neither is the habit of abuse.
They are all overcome by the same tools: Awareness, Determination, Practice (to form new habits), and one aspect that is often overlooked is the need for the person to make retribution to those they have harmed. (For a wider perspective, see http://alcoholism.about.com/ ) As you can see, breaking the habit of abuse is not easy.

Or it may require some medical treatment if the person needs help to avoid the impulse to abuse, a sedative or possibly other psychotropic drugs. Unfortunately, many women become addicted to abuse when they approach menopause or when they are going through menopause. This can happen to men, also.

PMS has become a social icon, but it also illustrates the psychological (meaning chemical) impulse to abuse.

Abusive relationships have a well-defined pathology.
At first, the Abuser is not seen as abusive by either side. The Abused simply goes into denial about the actions of the Abuser. That allows the Abuser to appear to not be abusive.

In time, the Abused feels they have to defend themselves.
Taking a page from any relationship, the Abused begins to mimic the actions of the Abuser. -- During this stage, it is impossible to distinguish between Abused and Abuser. Both are being abusive.

There is a real danger here: The Abused can become addicted to abuse.

It's a sort of Catch-22 though. If the Abused rejects conforming to the habits of the Abuser, the Abuser only becomes more abusive. There is only one answer at this point, the relationship must end. To preserve their own sanity, the Abused must stay away from the Abuser.

If the relationship continues, the Abused becomes the Victim. And the Abuser only becomes bolder in their abuse.

The role of Victim is just as addictive as the role of Abuser.

If the Abused forms the habit of abuse, then they both become Victim/Abusers.
There is no good choice until both acknowledge that they are both abusive and make the mature, determined effort to break the habit. (This is analogous to a woman warning you she's PMS-ing.)

To break the habit of abuse, it takes a commitment from all parties to be aware of abusive behaviour and to consciously avoid it.
Why do I say "all parties"?
Well, a couple (or even one parent) can teach Abuse to their children.

Although few outside AA know it, there are two main groups. There is Alcoholics Anonymous for the alcoholic; and there is Al Anon for the families and friends of the alcoholic -- the Enablers.

The classic example is a family sitting down to dinner, but the father (alcoholic) is missing. The older son (or daughter) goes out and finds his father blind drunk in a gutter, covered with scum.
The son brings the still-filthy father (the gender roles can be reversed, of course) to the dinner table, and a neighbor comes into the room.
The mother looks up at the neighbor and says, "You'll have to excuse my husband. He's been working on the car and didn't have time to change.", and all the family smiles happily and nods in agreement.
The neighbor might just sit down, bewildered, and have a "normal" meal with the family.
This may sound surreal, but things very similar happen all over the world daily.

The point is that Abuse is not just a problem for one person in a family, or group. It becomes a behavioural problem for all involved. (Think of the neighbor who sat down to dinner?)

Unfortunately, the law has not reached this level of understanding about Abuse.
The legal system has only begun to recognize other forms of abuse besides physical violence. In fact, as we have all seen, the legal system is stuck in a sort of grand denial telling itself that only a man can be abusive -- because he is (assumed) the most capable of violence.

The legal system has identified other types of Abuse, but they have no means to prove it, and all the prejudices still apply. A woman can claim any sort of abuse she likes and it is instantly taken as proven before the courts, while well-documented situations by a man are ignored and ridiculed.

If there is a goal for this group and all those involved in the Mens Rights movement, it is to educate the legal system. Sadly, this would all be unnecessary if the officers of the legal system would simply apply the concept of equal protections under the law ...

--Paul

Read more!

Mr Murphy rose ...

Wednesday, 1 March 2006
John Murphy, ALP Member for Lowe

Mr MURPHY (Lowe) (12.36 pm)-I rise this afternoon to speak on this most important bill, the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005. My electorate office has been inundated with emails and other letters from parents suffering from the effects of divorce and with the dilemma of the current legal regime founded in the Family Court of Australia and the Child Support Agency.
There is, in my view, true despair felt by those parents who are bitterly unhappy about the existing so-called 'family' and 'child support' laws and the way in which these laws are administered.
I could easily spend my 20 minutes reading from texts of some of the heart-wrenching letters that I have received from my constituents. During the debate on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee report on 14 September 2005, I read a letter to the Main Committee.

...

I am indebted to a constituent, not of my electorate, who forwarded me a copy of the Daily Telegraph poll of 26 March 2004, which asked the question: which federal issue do you think needs the most attention in 2004?
Mr Deputy Speaker, what do you think the answer was? Was it national security? Was it unemployment or the economy? Astonishingly, overwhelmingly the winner, at 60 per cent of those polled, was child custody.
In my view, the government has not only failed miserably in this policy area but, with this bill, will ensure only the continued misery of parents, particularly fathers of children who are being systematically discriminated against by the Family Court of Australia and the Child Support Agency. Fathers are being made non-custodial parents while simultaneously having their assets ripped from their hands, and they are left legally powerless and penniless.
...

Because of how easily the courts, and the whole legal support system, was manipulated to become an instrument of abuse and extortion, I became involved in the effort to return reason and reality to this process.
This is a quote from the Australian Federal Parliament, 1 March 2006.
Unfortunately, Mr Murphey's voice was not enough. The Parliament and the Government failed the people of Australia again.

Read more!