Proof of Lindsay Jackel's involvement with Black Shirts

Here is a proven link from the Black Shirts to the Shared Parenting Council of Australia.
Lindsay Jackel is Victorian president of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia.
We believe that Lindsay Jackel was involved with the Black Shirts a militant and fanatical group terrorising women in Victoria. Here is proof that he had some involvement with them. Manumit is an alias of Lindsay Jackel's.
And what does "Martyr to the cause" mean exactly???



-----Original Message-----
From: Manumit Exchange [mailto:manumit@...]
Sent: 26 July 2002 17:41
To: Manumit Exchange
Cc: jeffface@...; fried@...
Subject: (AUS) Blackshirts


"Some of you may have already heard a little about this group. Below is a
composite of various articles about the Blackshirt group in Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia, fwd fyi by way of background.

Additionally, several associated articles follow, and are in turn followed
by various commentary.

The group is organised and in your face. They are Dads who have lost
everything, have received no justice or fairness at the hand of a feminist
(family and magistrates) court and legal (government) system (when they
were taught in school that they would if innocent), have nothing to lose
and are frustrated and angry. Their hopelessness has turned to despair and
to depression. The Blackshirts offers them community and hope.

John Abbott, their leader, is known to me. He is both angry and committed.
He will not be deterred and, if necessary, will no doubt be prepared to be
a "martyr" to the cause.

---

Victoria is a southern state of Australia.
Melbourne is the capital city of Victoria."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/euro-dads/message/7976

This is Hysterical!!!

See Conan/Peter Saxon/aka small man cut down to size!!!! It seems Isy has summed you up Conan in a very brief period and many people share his view not only of you but of the whole www.familylawwebguide site. And your traffic figure is another thing you lie about...we have seen Wayne and Michael Green brag about figures of 1,000,000 hits a month when the actual figure (easily accessed via the net and various sources) are only 1,500 hits per day which is not even 100,000 per month. We figure you have to justify the spending of Australian Government money somehow and none of you can tell the truth. Which brings us to another issue, we believe that the funding you did obtain was gained through dishonesty and we intend to follow this through. We believe you should be made to pay back the funds you have misapropriated from the Australian people and it is our mission to ensure that you do.
As snarly as you have lost ground now that they are winding back the changes to Family Law, you sure will be a lot grumpier then.

Points: 300 Joined: 05 June, 2009, 06:48 AM Primary group: Bronze Member ','auto','http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/themes/default/images/forum_navigation/members.png');" class="ocf_poster_member">isy Bronze Member	Marker Actually, I have enjoyed u site but time to go. I am under the impression, but not because of this thread, that u family law weguide community in the main is on the side of the judges and the lawyers, over and above the people.. The family law reform asssoc appears as a way to promote get a lawyer. Your self rep section is not open to view, etc. etc.. Thanks guys bye. ps, how do I remove my details of email, password etc..
	Posted Yesterday, 06:14 PM #25859
Points: 1,815 Joined: 16 February, 2007, 07:38 PM Primary group: Silver Member ','auto','http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/themes/default/images/forum_navigation/members.png');" class="ocf_poster_member">Conan Silver Member	Marker isy said Actually, I have enjoyed u site but time to go. I am under the impression, but not because of this thread, that u family law weguide community in the main is on the side of the judges and the lawyers, over and above the people. What a daft thing to say, how on Earth can you make such an absurd comment? Perhaps balanced posts are not your thing? isy said The family law reform asssoc appears as a way to promote get a lawyer. Have you ever been to an FLRA meeting? Another preposterous statement! isy said Your self rep section is not open to view, etc. etc.. The self rep area can be joined, they have private areas to protect the posters, surely you managed to read that? I would like to know if you ever took the SRL-R Quiz and the result because that would show us just how much you really don't know! isy said Thanks guys bye. ps, how do I remove my details of email, password etc.. I think the real reason is that you have come onto this site dispensing outmoded concepts, soap boxing (10,000 matters) and realize that many people are far more knowledgeable than yourself. I notice one of the moderators caught you out making a guest post which is a sure sign of a lurker.
	Posted Yesterday, 06:24 PM #25861
Points: 300 Joined: 05 June, 2009, 06:48 AM Primary group: Bronze Member ','auto','http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/themes/default/images/forum_navigation/members.png');" class="ocf_poster_member">isy Bronze Member	Marker Of all the posters I found conans to be a bit rude and stupid often, so it seems we have the same view of each other. And it is true in my opinion only, u site does not match other groups all that well. Conan seems to have a jealous streak. poor, fellow, u know it is a sin.
	Posted Yesterday, 06:39 PM #25863
Points: 1,815 Joined: 16 February, 2007, 07:38 PM Primary group: Silver Member ','auto','http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/themes/default/images/forum_navigation/members.png');" class="ocf_poster_member">Conan Silver Member	Marker isy said Of all the posters I found conans to be a bit rude Perhaps because I cannot bear idiots lightly? Only a bit rude? I must be having an off week. isy said opinion only, u site does not match other groups all that well. Then where are these marvelous other sites PLEASE! I visit a few sites and when factual questions are asked people are invariably referred to this site. As I understand the traffic to this site absolutely dwarfs all the other sites. PS You did not respond to my statements about the FLRA, why some of the self rep areas are private and any of your Quiz results!
	Posted Yesterday, 06:51 PM #25864
Points: 300 Joined: 05 June, 2009, 06:48 AM Primary group: Bronze Member ','auto','http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/themes/default/images/forum_navigation/members.png');" class="ocf_poster_member">isy Bronze Member	Marker U just admitted to being very rude, so why are u on this site? And people like myself do not link rude idiots or strange persons to other sites who may have to put up with u. U see, I always win
	Posted Yesterday, 07:42 PM #25866
Points: 1,815 Joined: 16 February, 2007, 07:38 PM Primary group: Silver Member ','auto','http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/themes/default/images/forum_navigation/members.png');" class="ocf_poster_member">Conan Silver Member	Marker isy said U see, I always win That remark really says a lot about you. From some of your previous posts you are a legend in your mind. Your opinions about Family Law seem as ill founded as some of you ill researched other opinions. Is it possible that you could just answer rather than avoid: Why your comments about the FLRA Where are these marvelous other sites? Why don't you understand that the self reps have private areas to protect their posters Why lurk as a guest
	Posted Yesterday, 07:56 PM #25868
Points: 300 Joined: 05 June, 2009, 06:48 AM Primary group: Bronze Member ','auto','http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/themes/default/images/forum_navigation/members.png');" class="ocf_poster_member">isy Bronze Member	Marker Your assumptions are amusing. In a game of wits, you will find it difficult to win, as I alway do. If you had have asked politely, I may have responded more fully, however, I can only repeat, I will not be directing you anywhere.

Why are so many mens and fathers rights groups part of the CSA Stakeholders group?

Advocacy Groups

• Dads in Distress
• Lone Father’s Association of Australia
• National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children
• Shared Parenting Council of Australia

Why the inequity of having 75% of the stakeholders groups represented by militant mens rights groups who promote violence against women?
The only group purporting to be representing women (and single mothers at that) is headed by Ms Swinbourne and could hardly be attributed the same amount of resources and funding as the other groups put together. The Lone Fathers Association is The Shared Parenting Council of Australia anyway and Dads In Distress is a close ally and they all work together.
Why is the Stakeholders group so unfairly stacked against Payees who are the beneficiaries? The mens rights groups have a vested interest in providing advice that seeks to avoid or minimise Child Support for the good of children, why is this situation allowed to exist???

http://www.csa.gov.au/Stakeholders/OurKeyStakeholders.aspx

Peter Saxon is a liar.

---- Forwarded Message ----
From: Peter Saxon <peter_sxn@yahoo.com.au>
To: fathers4equality@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 30 August, 2008 7:03:49 PM
Subject: Re: [fathers4equality] letter from FAMILY LAW REFORM ASSOC. NSW Inc.

All this back and forth discussion is clouding some of the facts and more information.

Firstly Michael Green and the SPCA have been outspoken critics of Section 121. The FLRA website evens contains an article of why they think ‘it’ should be rewritten.

Coral Slattery heads up the FLRA which is an independent organisation and a member of the SPCA. Apart from providing many submissions to the HORSIP inquiry they do a lot of work on schools policies. There is a recent article about their attempts to get the Attorney General to implement a Nationwide schools information policy for the ‘other parent’.

Michael Green is a retired QC

Michael Green is the president of the SPCA

Family Courts in Australia are not secret Courts and this be may be why Michael Green did not respond in the way you though he should have. The Courts are open and Judgments are published. It is the anonymity of these publications that causes these organisations to rail against Section 121. That said ‘any’ judgment can be ‘anonymised’ and published.

Both these organisation house their web sites on the familylawwebguide portal and both have forums on that site. I am aware that very much tougher rules apply to posts made on flwg because unlike this closed email site, it is a public site and has some tough posting and moderator rules. The site also has ‘go forward’ groups on it that do not appear to tolerate whingers and what they constantly refer to as ‘hot air merchants’. Their agendas are clearly legislative reforms and legislative fine tuning. I suppose with the incredible success of flwg they want to keep it focused.

There are several articles on flwg about a recent meeting with the AG. At this meeting were Coral Slattery, Wayne Butler (Secretary SPCA) and Michael Green. One of the Agenda items was the mis use of AVOs to prevent contact. Other items included the SPCAs long standing opposition to the mis use of Rice and Asplund. This is all public material and freely available on the flwg site.

Have things changed? Well over the past week I have spoken to three Fathers that were in Goulburn Street. Within the same period of a week all three had orders that three years ago no one would have dreamed possible. Two of these were srl’s and part of the SRL Resources mob on the flwg. I am also a member of that group and I understand that is not a member of the SPCA although several of its senior people have been offered SPCA postions. If anything this is one group that because of their constant frontline experience can tell whether there have been changes in the way the Courts work.

Some of the Funding Mens Rights Groups have recently received in Australia

Wow so much interest in this post lately. It's a pity most of you didn't do as instructed and paste the link into your browser instead of clicking on the link, now we know who you are and where you came from. Ta!



Dads in Distress Inc Local Answers - NSW 15/08/2007 31/10/2009 $231,858 N

Dads in Distress Inc Local Answers - NSW 15/09/2007 31/10/2009 $302,016 N

Dads in Distress Inc Local Answers - NSW 29/07/2004 1/08/2007 $330,000 N

Dads in Distress Inc Local Answers - VIC 22/08/2007 1/08/2009 $266,728 N

Shared Parenting Council of Australia Incorporated Child Support Scheme Reforms
Communications - Key AdvocacyGroups Program 21/03/2007 30/06/2008 $238,370 N

Lone Fathers Association of Australia Inc Child Support Scheme Reforms Communications - Key Advocacy Groups Program 1/09/2006 30/06/2008 $132,000 N

Lone Fathers Association of Australia Inc Child Support Scheme Reforms Communications - Key Advocacy Groups Program 1/07/2006 30/06/2008 $265,100 N

What the SPCA is really saying about the Child Support Agency

Peter Marsh State Director SPCA Qld said :

"The damage caused by the CSA Part6A review processes since 1997 has forced me and my children to suffer the effects of losing a home, losing the rented premises of ten years that my children knew, my career, my dignity, my health and my future prospects of self support and finally all contact between my children and myself. The CSA has been and still is the largest obstacle between myself and my children and the largest impediment to the future of my children and myself." Subsequent to these events, and what I can only presume to be out of spite xxxxxx wrote to me falsely portraying that I has resigned from the RAP meetings. Suffice to say, I was never invited back and the most senior of officials had orchestrated my removal as a community representative and stakeholder in the operation of Child Support in this country. These factors are an identifier of the endemic culture of the CSA and throw weight to the proposition that the CSA should be xxxxxxand should be xxxxxxxxxx removed from office and the CSA dismantled. "Catherine Argall and Shiela Bird of the CSA should be sacked from the public service and prevented from holding a position in the public service again."

Happy Birthday Conan/Viking!!!!

And a big happy april FOOL birthday to Peter Saxon aka Conan aka Viking aka Sneakydevil aka Loser.
Wow you're really getting on now and still so bitter and twisted.
Isn't it time you gave in and realised that you cannot ever win the battle and that women have a rightful place in society and that you cannot bully them forever.

Lindsay Jackel SPCA also supports pedophile comments

Lindsay Jackel Victorian Director of Shared Parenting Council is a staunch supporter of Warren Farrell who has been revealed for making pro pedophilic, incest and rape comments.
Warren Farrell said:

""We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting."

""When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200," says Farrell, "the incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve -- and in one or two cases to join in."

"“the incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection.”

"... the writer happened to be at his beach house alone with his attractive fifteen-year-old daughter.... His wife's appendix operation had curtailed his sex for the previous five months... the women on the beach and a few beers had led him into special temptation. When the daughter emerged from the bathroom in a towel, he greeted her in the nude and erect. Although he had never consciously desired incest before he told his daughter he missed sex. Without further prompting, she fellated him...Two weeks later the daughter walked around the house naked until the father approached her. That day he deflowered her to their mutual satisfaction. But the father was careful not to push things. He did not want to hurt his daughter, who seemed to have an active sex life with boys her own age. Several weeks later, the daughter took the initiative again... "

"First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn't. My book should at least begin the exploration."

""The average incest participant can't evaluate his or her experience for what it was. As soon as society gets into the picture, they have to tell themselves it was bad. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy."


http://justice4mothers.wordpress.com/trish-wilson-responds-to-warren-farrell/

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=dad4life+warren+farrell&hl=en&cr=countryAU&filter=0

Dad4life, matrix, manumit, nuance, J.L. are just some of Lindsay's aliases.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell.htm

http://ginmar.livejournal.com/747900.htm

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/04/

Lindsay Jackel is a close ally and friend of Barry Williams of Lone Fathers Association who is also a key member of Shared parenting Council and he published in his NOOS newsletter the article that contained the following comments:

"Fathers need to touch and hold in affirming, non sexual ways. For daughters, sex and affection may become confused if not. This gives a gior greater physical self love, and a sense that she can be unconditionally loved by, men."


It seems there is a common thread amongst these men in not only actively supporting this pedophilic material (Jackel actively defends Farrell wherever he can and seemingly sponsored a visit to Australia by Farrell) but also distributing this material by way of newsletters and emails. Isn't that against the law?

See earlier posts and links about Jackel hanging out on Gay Classified websites and on other forums and his probing questions about males getting raped in jail.

Published by The Lone Fathers Association of Australia

This was published in the NOOS, the publication put out by Barry Williams of the Lone father Association of Australia and Executive of Shared parenting Council of Australia and mens health Ambassador to the Federal Government.

Why fathers are important for daughtersFrom New Zealand's Caring Fathers newsletter, via The Noos, newsletter of the Lone Fathers Association of Australia by Warwick Pudney
Printed in June/July 2003 NOOS

"Children put importance on "real", genetic fathers, It's part of establishing identity.Fathers are responsible for building that part of positive self?esteem that originates from a man. This will help her feel good with men.Affirmation by father helps when dealing with negativity and criticism, or abuse from males.Fathers need to touch and hold in affirming, non?sexual ways. For daughters, sex and affection may become confused if not. This gives a gior greater physical self love, and a sense that she can be unconditionally loved by, men.The father may impart a sense of adventure and confidence in the non?domestic world.The father has an important connection with the outdoors, nature and wild places.A father can give a sense of' secuirty and protection by setting boundaries for the for the girl and preventing hurt and danger to his daughter.For daughters in teen years, it is important to learn how to relate to a man in a safe, confident. affirming and boundary?setting manner. Loving approval from a father may prevent dependence and vulnerability in relationships with males.Fathers have a sense of risk?taking an excitement. They play and explore physical space in a robust manner.Fathers teach things about the world especially in the realm of the rational, ill spartial relationships, and physical action.Fathers support mothers.Fathers give confidence that things can he fixed.Fathers affirm risk?taking and achievement.Some tasks are done equally well, or better by women, but it is good to have two parents doing them.As fathers, we may all fall short from time to time, but the Challenge is to do thing's well."

The Shared parenting council of Australia just want ALL of your details.

See here, they offer you a FREE screensaver, that's it you read right, a FREE screensaver in exchange for ALL of your details. That sounds fair doesn't it? What's that you're saying it doesn't sound fair or right, or morally sound even? Now just why do they want ALL of that information? Why do they insist that you register your details on Familylawwebguide.com.au and urge you to join their SRL enclave and then whine continuously about how busy they are and all you plebs need to wait in line yadda yadda yadda? They want to get your details and they even ring you up to verify you are who you say you are if you join the SRL. We have a good source of information that says that "special" relationship they have with the CSA isn't accidental.
You have been warned!


SPCA Screen Saver
The SPCA has an MS Windows screen saver for you to install on your PC.
SPCA Screen Saver 1
If you complete the form below we will provide with a link to the SPCA Screen Saver for you to download. Should you experience any difficulty in completing or submitting this form you can request the screen saver from the SPCA secretariat by email.
Please provide the following details and then click on the Send Screen Saver button at the bottom of the form.
Clicking on the Screen Saver button indicates your agreement to the SPCA adding your email address to its records. We will send you emails regarding our activities on a regular basis.
Required fields are marked with an [*] and must be completed before your request for the Screen Saver can be processed.

Title:
[*] First Name:
[*] Family Name:
Telephone Numbers:
Work:
Home:
Mobile:
[*] Email address:
Address:
Unit/Street Number:
Town/Suburb:
State:
ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA
Postcode:

Authorised by E. Dabrowski© Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2006The Shared Parenting Council of AustraliaPO Box 2027, Bunbury WA 6231mailto:6231secretariat@spca.org.au



http://web.archive.org/web/20070102120237/http://www.spca.org.au/

SPCA + Richard Hillman Foundation + Fathers4Equality = Black Shirts

Why Howard suddenly started to talk about custody battles
June 21 2003
Rebuttable joint custody is the catchcry for a group of influential lobbyists. Murray Mottram reports.

John Abbott's main claim to fame is that he is the cousin of the "Postcard Bandit", bank robber Brenden Abbott, whose infamous deeds were depicted in a telemovie.
But if John Howard goes ahead with changes to Family Court custody battles, John Abbott and two other Adelaide advocates of father's rights will take credit for laying the groundwork.
Yesterday Mr Howard announced on Alan Jones' Sydney radio program that the Government would hold a parliamentary inquiry on an idea that he said would turn the present Family Court rules on their head.
The Prime Minister said that historically, when a marriage broke up, the courts had to decide between the mother or the father for custody. "It's only in very rare circumstances that other arrangements are ordered," he said. "The situation at the moment is that the presumption is that custody will be given to one or the other.
"What we're looking at is to alter that so the presumption is that it will be a shared arrangement unless circumstances suggest otherwise."


For years Mr Abbott, the political officer of the Richard Hillman Foundation, joined two other men scarred by Family Court battles. They were a former South Australian Liberal Party official, Geoff Greene, and the Joint Parenting Association president, Yuri Joakimidis.
The policy - known as rebuttable joint custody - is used by several states in the US. According to Mr Abbott, the son of divorced parents whose own marriage ended in an acrimonious custody case in 1998, the issue landed on Mr Howard's desk as a result of a strategy he formulated two years ago.
He put a draft bill drawn up by Mr Joakimidis, who had researched the American laws, to One Nation's Senator Len Harris.
Mr Abbott said he knew Senator Harris could not get the bill enacted, but he believed the Government would adopt the idea for fear of "father's rights" becoming an issue that would revive voter support for One Nation.
Senator Harris introduced his private member's bill a year ago yesterday with a speech written by Mr Joakimidis.
Senator Harris said yesterday the bill had generated "enormous" interest on radio.
He said he did not care who got the credit, as long as the policy got on the statute books.
However, Mr Greene, deputy director of the Liberal Party in South Australia for two years until 2001, says it was his lobbying for the Joakimidis proposal that put it on the Prime Minister's agenda.
Mr Greene, who said he went through an expensive Family Court hearing before getting a shared parenting agreement several years ago, took the proposal to Christopher Pyne, the member for the South Australian seat of Sturt.
Mr Pyne is chairman of the Liberal backbench committee covering the Attorney-General's office, which is responsible for the Family Court.
"The Attorney-General's office had always been the roadblock, opposed to any reform," Mr Greene said.
Late last year Mr Greene cut his ties with Mr Joakimidis's association because he did not think Senator Harris could get the bill through.
Mr Greene became full-time federal director of the Shared Parenting Association, a national coalition of mainly fathers' rights groups, and went to work in Canberra.
After presenting research backing the rebuttable joint custody proposal to Mr Pyne and other MPs, Mr Greene joined forces with another group of Coalition MPs formed by a South Australian Liberal senator, Jeannie Ferris, and NSW backbencher Ken Ticehurst.
Mr Ticehurst said this week he had become concerned at the level of suicide among fathers who lost custody of their children.
The American states that used the joint custody model had succeeded in lowering the divorce rate, he said.
Senator Ferris said the group had been working with advisers from the Prime Minister's office since the middle of last year on a review of child support payments and custody issues.
She said she had been unaware of Senator Harris's bill, but had seen material about rebuttable joint custody on the internet.
Mr Joakimidis said he had raised the issue with Senator Ferris last year. Senator Ferris said MPs were continually raising Family Court issues with Mr Howard because of the large amount of time they spent dealing with constituents' complaints about their cases, and the emotional distress in dealing with them.
One MP said those backing the shared custody idea "cut through" to Mr Howard because they were offering a potential solution, not just complaining about the problem.
In December, Mr Pyne formally raised the rebuttable joint custody proposal at a joint party meeting of the coalition.
According to MPs, the Prime Minister expressed an interest, recognising it as a "hot button" issue in the electorate.
In February, Attorney-General Daryl Williams prepared a paper for Mr Pyne's backbench committee talking about changing the operation of the Family Court, which leaves the decision on child residence, or custody, to judges when parents cannot agree.
(The latest court figures, for 2001, show that although the number of men winning custody fights has increased to 20 per cent, mothers are still awarded primary care in 70 per cent of cases, and only 2.5 per cent of decisions are for joint residence.)
Three months ago, says Senator Ferris, her group began working on terms of reference for a parliamentary inquiry.
After the Family Court was raised again in the Coalition party room on Tuesday, Mr Howard's office confirmed publicly that he would consider rebuttable joint custody in a review of child custody.
But despite the willingness of the Prime Minister to air the proposal, its backers concede it will be hard.
Already the chief justice of the Family Court, Alastair Nicholson, Labor's Family Court spokesman, Robert McClelland, and his Democrats' opposite number, Brian Greig, have declared their opposition to a law enforcing rebuttable shared custody.
They say the courts should still have discretion case by case.
But for Mr Abbott and Mr Greene, the hard backroom work has already paid off. "We're quietly happy with what's happened so far," said Mr Abbott. "We've got the issue up for public debate."
Says Mr Greene: "Once the Prime Minister is on your side it's easier to get your story heard.
"Cabinet sets policy and Attorney-General's will do what it's told. I think it's possible we'll have legislation before Christmas. I think we have very good odds of success.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/20/1055828492831.html

Some background on John Abbott:

The man in black who sees red
December 20 2002
They see themselves as white knights, but others say the Blackshirts are just thugs, writes Peter Ellingsen.
You don't notice the bitterness at first. Gliding out of his office, John Abbott exhibits a brittle charm. He offers a wan smile, a firm handshake and enough anecdotes to fill the Dane Centre, the rambling recording and rehearsal complex that he owns in Brunswick.
Men At Work honed their hits here, John Farnham mixed with the Little River Band and US acts Dr Hook and Hall and Oates dropped by. "It's been like a giant party," he says of his years in the music business. "We've had a lot of fun."
With his gold chain, gold rings and grey hair lapping his ears, Abbott looks more like Penthouse founder Bob Guccione than any of the rock icons hanging on the wall. In fact, he is the new and unnerving face of the men's movement.
A sometime keyboard player who found success renting equipment to the likes of Billy Thorpe, Abbott, 56, heads the Blackshirts, a group that dons masks and protests outside the homes of women they deem to be immoral. The mainly male, middle-aged group also heckles women at the Family Court and demands that divorce laws be repealed.
They are the most radical and outrageous expression of the frustration some men's groups feel with the Family Court, and what they see as its pro-women bias.

But theirs is not just a crusade to turn back the clock. By demanding adultery be treated like murder by the courts, the Blackshirts are seeking the creation of a law that does not currently exist in Western society.
"Adultery must be met with the greatest severity," Abbott says. "I'm very angry, but I don't yell. I just make a list of men and women to die."
The words are shocking, but Abbott does not seem to notice. He is consumed by what he sees as betrayal.
For Abbott, those who leave a marriage - and they are now mainly women - are evil. It is a sentiment that seeks to bypass the 1970s, when feminism first rocked the pillars of patriarchy. Then, women stayed home, and stayed in bad marriages. Now, they work and opt out of poor partnerships more frequently than do men. Some men, particularly those who are middle-aged and unskilled, have found this hard to accept. But, whereas many men's groups complain about it, the Blackshirts harass and intimidate.
Abbott is the force and money behind the group, and what he wants is a return to the days when divorce was a kind of crime, when private detectives gathered evidence of infidelity. He wants guilt and blame back in the bedroom. "Society has got it all wrong," he says. "Marriage is supposed to be forever. I was bought up with Christian values that taught marriage was not discardable."
His vigilante style is extreme, but his longing for what he sees as a more stable and - for men - less confronting, past, is shared with other, often more moderate, groups.
As Dr Jo Lindsay, a sociologist at Monash University, points out, there is a contemporary anxiety about families not needing men any more. The loss of men's traditional authority, the decline of the nuclear family and the fact that service jobs (women's work) are the fastest-growing sector of the economy, has left some men feeling uneasy.
On top of that, women demand more emotional involvement. "Women expect more than just a breadwinner role from men," Dr Lindsay says. "They want men to do the emotional, as well as other work, needed to sustain a relationship."
In a benchmark paper, British sociologists Jean Duncombe and Dennis Marsden cite studies that show some men are not capable of this. They say that on the whole, husbands and wives meet as intimate strangers.
"When the false romantic images which are part of 'falling in love' have been broken down, it turns out that couples seek incompatible emotional goals in marriage."
Their survey found most men seek a life in common with their wives, a physical base; while wives want a common life, an intimacy that makes them feel valued as a person, not just a wife.
They also point to the finding that some men, even though they share domestic jobs, are psychic celibates who fail to take emotional responsibility for marriage and fatherhood.
It is not something Abbott wants to contemplate. With resentment clouding his face, he explains how his wife left him 12 years ago and took up with another man. Because he refused to "change his attitude to his wife's new partner", he says the Family Court would not agree to him having contact with his two sons, both of whom are now adults.
He did not contest custody, nor, he says, did he demand that his wife return to him. He wanted the other man to leave, and when he did not, his mind turned to violence.
Swinburne University sociologist, Associate Professor Michael Gilding, says it is common for men who have been through the Family Court to be distressed. "If they haven't come to grips with the changes, they can have a lot of rage," he says.
"Women are more likely to see problems in marriage, leave and be happier. Men are more likely to be bitter and struggle to accept any responsibility."
Sitting beneath a yellowing photograph of the Beatles, Abbott seems to think he can force a change back to the '50s, when men made the money and marriage was forever. Just how serious he is about physical violence is not clear. He says his group is non-violent, but there are women who say he has terrified them by turning up outside their homes, or at court cases, with a mob of hooded men.
Paula Pope, who lives close to his factory in Brunswick, was so threatened she formed a counter-group, Diversity in Safe Communities (DISC), after a run-in with Abbott this year.
"It's very intimidating to have a gang outside your place or in court during an intervention order," she says. Pope, who has been off work because of stress since the encounter, says that while the Blackshirts are at the periphery of the men's movement, they have sympathy among some more mainstream groups.
She describes their tactics and goals as fascist. "It all comes from the one mindset. They want to control and own women and their children and they're ready to do it by force. It is a 1950s' mentality - the brutalisation of the other."
Abbott admits the dress and demeanour of the Blackshirts - a name that traces back to militant fascism in Depression-era England - is designed to create fear. "I wanted the attention and the fear," he explains, insisting his group has never committed any actual violence.
"The people who are perturbed about our actions have a guilty mind," he says. "We always tell the police about our protests. Our aim is to shame women, not intimidate them."
He claims to have 300 supporters in Australia, including Meret-field Sally-Brown, 56, a retired teacher of Highett, who says women have nothing to fear from the Blackshirts. Like most of the group, she has a gripe with the Family Court.
Linda Nicholls, 38, of Rowville, agrees, and says Abbott helped after her husband left her and their three children for another woman two years ago. "He offered moral support. I think he's doing the right thing. The Blackshirts are making people aware. Those leaving marriages say they've done nothing wrong, but they have. My kids are growing up without a father."
Attorney-General Rob Hulls brands the Blackshirts as gutless. "If they think they can pump around the place with their hideous cowboy masks and black shirts and take the law into their own hands, they've got another thing coming," he says.
He says the government will ensure women are protected from the violence and hate campaigns of vigilantes.
Police have set up a unit to monitor the Blackshirts after an Ashburton mother who had left her marriage was targeted by the group. Letters were sent to her neighbours claiming she had corrupted her children. The letters asked her neighbours to give her a message that enough is enough. There have been other similar incidents.
None of this seems to faze Abbott, who is about to put his business in the hands of his employees to work full time and without pay setting up Blackshirts' cells in every Australian city.
The aim is to generate enough pressure to repeal the 1975 law which introduced no-fault divorce and made marriage easier to end.
While some men's groups condemn the Blackshirts, others argue that the Family Court-child support system encourages vigilantes. On the website, Shattered Men, Malcolm Mathias, the president of Fathers for Family Equity Inc, says that while he does not condone the group's actions, he understands their frustration.
"Most men's groups certainly feel they have been done over by the system and some of them feel so done over and so separated from everything they grew up believing, that they end up committing suicide," he says. "Men face the double jeopardy of a system that doesn't seem to recognise fatherhood."
Kathleen Swinbourne, president of the Sole Parents' Union, disagrees, arguing that the Blackshirts have a warped sense of family. "Most divorced fathers care about their children and try to maintain a good relationship with them," she says. "Even those who have problems don't resort to this behaviour. Blackshirt members, and men who identify with them, are nasty, personal and vindictive."
While some church groups have long attacked the overhaul of the divorce laws by former Labor attorney-general, Lionel Murphy, groups such as the Blackshirts go much further.
Conservative cliques such as the US-based religious organisation, the Promise Keepers, talk up the family, (as long as men are at its head), and talk down gays. But Abbott, who insists that he is not aggressive, talks of revenge.
"I've tried to hold my emotions down, but I can't," he says. "Blood's thicker than water. All I want is for him (his former wife's partner) to leave. I'm not vindictive, but I am not going to let this go."
It is a significant move beyond the clubbiness of the born-again-blokeism that found a voice 12 years ago with US poet, Robert Bly and his book, Iron John. Bly believed that, because of unresponsive fathers, men had lost touch with their emotions. For some this turned into a search for male bonding through rituals like going bush, sweat lodges and hunting.
In Australia, psychologist Steve Biddulph urged men to heal by learning from women, and giving more attention to their own inner spirit.
The Blackshirts have upped the ante and, in theory at least, have a sizeable pool of disaffected men to draw on. It is not just that divorce (now initiated mostly by women) is at a 20-year high; about 15 per cent, or 770,000, of Australia's five million families, are sole parent. This is more than twice that of 1971, and of these, more than 640,000 are headed by women.
The share of residence (or custody) orders made in favour of men has risen from 15 per cent to almost 20 per cent in the past five years, but men's groups argue that this still amounts to gender bias.
The problem is that, while Abbott and his supporters say the system is unfair, and does not protect children, their response turns on threats.
Paula Pope says the estimated 100,000 victims of domestic violence in Victoria each year are mainly women and children, and suffer because of angry men.
Abbott says his campaign is all about the children, but does not explain how threats will help. He admits he is angry, but prefers it to what he calls weakness. He has attended other men's groups, but found them passive. Like the counselling he tried, they wanted him to admit his marriage was over.
"I was expected to cry on someone's shoulder, but a man's not supposed to do that," he says. "It achieves nothing."
There is an unsettling sense of unreality and inflexibility about Abbott's claims. Though he has long been divorced from his wife, he says it is only she who is divorced; he is still married.
"I'm not a divorcee," he says. Since the break-up in 1990, he says he has not had another relationship. "Women have continuously tried to hit on me - I'm fairly attractive - but I've not made myself available," he says. "Sex is not to be taken lightly. And the needs of my children are far more important."
He now lives with his parents, attends church and plans Blackshirts' campaigns. He quotes the Bible, laments the loss of his children, but defends his decision not to see them. They will be reunited in heaven, he says. "The whole family will be reinstated. That's what heaven's about; there there's no pain."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/19/1040174344351.html

http://www.personsmissing.org/blackshirts.html

http://www.blackshirts.info/index2.html

Wow, this article sums up the Mens Rights Movement in Australia to a tee, Angry, Violent, Controlling, Bullying, Threatening Men.

Lone Fathers/Shared Parenting Council deny women protection from domestic violence

Website of the Lone Fathers Association of Australia and
The Office of the Status of Men and Their Families

Policy Submissions

Resolution Regarding the UN Study on Violence Against Women ("RADAR") (Domestic violence)

Recommends that the ideologically anti-male UN report on “Violence against women" not be implemented by the UN.

1. Whereas, the World Health Organization has reported that twice as many men die from violence ­related causes as women, 1

2. Whereas, men are more than three ­times more likely than women to die from injuries sustained from armed conflict, 1

3. Whereas, 3.5 times as many men commit suicide worldwide as women, 1

4. Whereas, in almost every country around the world, men have shorter life expectancies than women, reaching a 13­ year disparity in the Russian Federation, 2

5. Whereas, a compilation of 195 scientific studies of partner violence concludes, "women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with spouses or male­partners, 3

6. Whereas, according to a Statistics Canada report, 7% of women and 6% of men report violence by a current or previous partner in the previous five years. 4

7. Whereas, according to a recent international study of severe violence among dating couples, 55% was mutual violence, 16% was male ­only, and 29% of violence was female­ only. 5

8. Whereas, the president of the American Psychological Association has recently noted that "Several studies of domestic violence have suggested that males and females in relationships have an equal likelihood of acting out physical aggression, 6

9. Whereas, reports from Africa reveal that domestic violence against men is widespread, but men are reluctant to report the abuses,7,8

And

10. Whereas, the United Nations recently released the Secretary­ General's Study on Violence Against Women,

11. Whereas, the report ignores the fact that half of all partner violence is mutual, and glosses over the problem of male victimization altogether, 9

12. Whereas, the report uses misandrous and inflammatory language such as "patriarchal" in falsely stereotyping men,

13. Whereas, leading family violence researchers around the world have criticized the report's portrayal of domestic violence as being "biased" and ensuring "that both women and men will continue to be victimised in this way,"10

And

14. Whereas, programs similar to those proposed by the Secretary­General's report have caused undesirable outcomes for women, 11

15. Whereas, the report fails to require persons who allege domestic violence to provide objective evidence of abuse, and false allegations are known to result in harm to children,12

16. Whereas, the report also calls for stronger law enforcement and prosecution efforts, which have been shown to result in widespread violations of due process protections, 13

14. Whereas, the result of such domestic violence programs has been to weaken families, bias divorce proceedings, and deprive children of contact from their fathers.14
15.

Therefore, the undersigned organizations urgently call on the Third Committee to:

1. Simply "Note" (but not "Welcome") the recent Secretary­General's report.

2. Discourage implementation of the recommendations of the Study on Violence Against Women until its effects on families and children are analyzed and understood.

3. Request incoming UN Secretary­General Ban Ki­moon to undertake a counterpart Study on Violence against Men.

Mark Rosenthal
RADAR: Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting

Australia:
Tony Miller Dads in Distress
Barry Williams Lone Fathers' Association
Micheal Woods Men's Health Information & Resource Centre
Sue Price Men's Rights Agency
John Flanagan Non­Custodial Parents Party
Edward Dabrowski Shared Parenting Council of Australia

SPCA is www.familylawwebguide.com.au

The Politics of Father Rights Activists – Do persistent critics of the Family Court behave in a way which stands up to scrutiny?
By M. C. Dunn
Presented to National Abuse Free Contact Campaign (NAFCC) 2004

In 1995 when the Australian family law was being amended, Family Court of Australia Chief Justice Nicholson stated “some people and some politicians with limited knowledge of the issues involved, tend to latch on to such dysfunctional persons for apparent political gain. This has the further unfortunate effect of empowering such persons to feel that their behaviour is not only acceptable but is the subject of sympathy and approval by politicians and government. It is all too often the experience of this court that its most persistent critics have behaved in a way which cannot stand up to public scrutiny, particularly in relation to issues of violence against women and children”. Justice Nicholson has consistently recognised that many of the Court’s harshest critics were “discontented litigants, sometimes obviously dysfunctional”. Further, he recognised that these same people and the groups to which they belong, were being granted access to corridors of powers that resulted in legislation and policy reforms that did not arrest the violence against women and children (that was being heard in some family court proceedings). Justice Nicholson continued “Such persons, who often espouse the rights of fathers, do very little for their cause. There are legitimate matters that can be advanced on their behalf and it is equally as important that the court and those within it do not adopt stereotyped attitudes towards men as well as women.” (Nicholson 1995, p1)

In the context of Justice Nicholson’s comments above, this paper scrutinises the behaviour and language of the two major father’s rights activists organisations, the Shared Parenting Council of Australia (SPCA), and the Fatherhood Foundation (FF), particularly in relation to issues of violence against women and children and how these intersect with the emergent contemporary discourse of “fatherlessness” assertion and role models for children. Further this paper will provide evidence that the internet based collectives affiliated to the two key fathers’ rights activists organisations incite virulent hatred of, and harmful action towards targeted women and their perceived supporters. This paper examines why these two key Fathers’ Rights Activist Organisations (FRAO) are gaining such open access and encouragement to/from politicians when much of their agenda expresses high levels of hate and vitriol against women and why this is seemingly ignored in public discourse to the detriment of women’s and children’s safety.

This paper draws on primary materials including: submissions by FRAO and their membership to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs 2003 “Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangements” (from here on referred to as the Inquiry); self-generated literature; father’s rights activists email lists and message board postings, and media searches of publishes stories and broadcasts.

This paper focuses on the two major FRAO, the SPCA, and the FF because they have been identified as the two key players in lobbying the Australian government for legislative change in the area of family law.

Forming the Fathers’ Rights Agenda the two major Father’s Rights Activists Organisations
In 1998, after attending a prayer meeting in Canberra’s Federal Parliament, Warwick and Alison Marsh founded the Fatherhood Foundation (FF). It was set up in response to address what they perceived as an escalating social crisis caused by “fatherless families” and a high divorce rate (FF 2002). Contributing to their continued rise, the Fatherhood Foundation had been joined with and influenced by some father’s rights groups like Fairness in Child Support/Non-Custodial Party, and the Lone Fathers Association (LFA) (FF 2003, FF 2003i). Alliances within the men’s health network, right-wing conservative Christian prayer groups, and other men’s rights advocates resulted in the FF now joining the discourse about the need for family law reform more strategically (FF 2003ii). Claiming men’s rights to their children was the central platform, they agitated specifically for a rebuttable presumption of shared care because “too many men were suiciding as a result of “femocentric family law” system” (FF 2003iii).

A rebuttable presumption of shared care is a statutory provision that means that if parents separate, there would be an immediate legal presumption that any children of the marriage would live 50 per cent of the time with each parent. If that were not practical or desirable, then it would be up to one or both of the parents in court to rebut or challenge that. In the words of SPCA’s Matilda Bawden, "Parents (would) have the right to 50-50 contact and if a parent wants to contest that, they would have to argue in the Family Court that it's not in the child's best interest to have that contact” (Wenhem 2003). The circumstances to rebut such a presumption were never made clear.

Shared care has different possible meanings in the context of the renewed family law debate. In 1996 The Family Law Act was amended to make clear that while a child may reside largely with one parent, the responsibility for shared care of that child's well-being is ideally shared equally between both parents. The Act clearly articulates the principles to which it aspires in Section 60B(2). Those principles mean the Act provides a framework which is already 100 per cent flexible and can cater to any permutation of residency arrangements ensuring the best interests of children and their safety. In the context of the FRAO shared care means that children will divide their time between both parents’ residence equally (ie 50/50). A clear understanding of what is meant by ‘shared care’ is important, as it differs from the term rebuttable presumption of shared care which has the underpinning emphasis on preferencing parental rights by children spending equal amounts of time with each parent. Currently, the amount of time a child spends in each parent’s residence is significant in the discourse of family law reform, particularly as child support (cs) and welfare (Centrelink) disbursements are paid and now linked to the time the children spend at each parent’s residence, measured in nights and/or the primary residence.

In 2002, a number of the more vocal and active of the FRA groups from each state (other than Tasmania) incorporated to form a national council with a specific father’s rights agenda, but using the more ambiguous title of Shared Parenting Council of Australia (SPCA) (SPCA 2002i). Partly this title was developed in order to project a bipartisan approach to family law and to claim female support, usually second wives/partners and paternal grandparents (West 2003).

Both the SPCA and FF have a strong cross-membership between both organisations (FF 2003iv, SPCA 2003). While the FF has a distinctive right-wing fundamentalist Christian focus with an emphasis to strengthen father’s roles within their families, the SPCA reflects the concerns of non-resident parents (mostly fathers). Both are concerned with family law reform. Many fathers’ rights activists belong to multiple organisations to promote shared agendas for men’s control of property, child support, mothers and children through marriage promotion and attacks on the social supports available to single parent families.

Examples of joint affiliates, but with stronger right-wing fundamental Christian influence in both organisations are the Festival of Light and Australian Families Associations. Both of these organisations argue for preventative measures to stop marriage dissolution through the need to control the capacity of women to leave, since women are more likely to take the children, and thereby weakening fathers’ bonds with their child (Muehlenberg 2004). Another joint affiliate of both FRAO is the secular Lone Fathers’ Association (LFA) which represents predominantly non-resident fathers.

Organisations which focus on family law reform for men have linked to the SPCA only. An example of an affiliate of SPCA only is the Family Law Reform Association NSW Inc. This organisation does not construct itself as a FROA, rather it claims equality for both parents, but states that fathers are usually the ones disadvantaged by the current family law system. Other affiliates are Dads Australia Inc, Fathers After Divorce, Men’s Confraternity of WA Inc, Men’s Right Agency (national), the Fatherhood Foundation, Ozydads and the Separated Fathers Network. With such a focus on fathers’/men’s rights the name Shared Parenting Council of Australia is not congruent with their apparent inclusive title that conceals a men’s rights agenda.

Access to political power
At least two of SPCA’s federal executive committee have political backgrounds, although in different political camps. The SPCA Federal Director (2002-2003), Geoffrey Greene, is a former deputy director of Liberal Party in South Australia who now works for the Liberal Party in Queensland whilst and SPCA Federal Director (2002-2003), and SPCA’s founding President, Matilda Bawden, is a former federal Democrat candidate. Both have had associations with the Richard Hillman Foundation Inc (RHF), a South-Australian based FRAO which focuses on the interests of fathers who claim to have been falsely accused of child sexual assault. Greene helped formulate the policy agenda for a rebuttable share care policy through his connections with the RHF. By 2002 he had severed that connection because the RHF had continued to pursue introducing a private member’s bill of a presumption of rebuttable shared care through the far right-wing One Nation’s Senator Len Harris. Greene saw greater opportunity to use his political connections within the Liberal Party, since they were in power, to lobby key friendly politicians and senators active in forming a backbench committee to influence the Prime Minister (Mottram 2003, Cassidy 2002, SPCA 2002ii). This strategy assisted men’s rights advocates in gaining access to sympathetic politicians. As reported by SPCA, they “established a clear pathway through the party room and Cabinet, to have our representations heard and acted on” (SPCA 2002iii). Similarly, the FF had networked through the Parliamentary prayer groups attended by the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Treasurer, a number of Senators finding support and an opportunity to reinforce the case for social reform through legislative change (FF 2002).

Most of the SPCA federal executive committee and state and territory directors additionally have a history of lobbying and activism. Co-founder of Men’s Rights Agency, Sue Price, and current Federal director Michael Green facilitated a Parliamentary presentation that asserted the adversarial system of the Family Law Court had failed (men) and that a mediation process should be the first option in cases of family breakdown (SPCA 2002iii p2, Glancy 2002i, West 2003). (Green runs a mediation service in Sydney for divorcing couples). This presentation won over many parliamentarians, staffers and some media that were present.
Both the FF the SPCA most immediate agenda was to lobby government and representatives to ensure that post separation fathers have equal time with their children, as opposed to the idea of sharing responsibility (SPCA 2002 iv p3). The FF helped propel the SPCA’s lobbying by backing calls for an inquiry with their claims about “the facts of fatherlessness”. This list of alarming statistics was used to build the case for a rebuttable presumption of joint custody (Flood 2003). Aiding both FRAO agendas is appeal to the many conservative Christian parliamentarians’ pro-marriage beliefs and a few who support a masculinist discourse (Lyons Forum 1995, Andrews 1999, Crabb 2003). Both FRAO have succeeded in gaining sympathy for fathers, promoting their agenda using a rhetoric of equal parenting while at the same time stigmatising “fatherless” families, and denigrating and branding single mothers as insufficient care-givers whose families cause many social problems (Jones 2003, The Age 2003, Albrechtsen 2003, Daily Telegraph 7/7/03, Arndt 2002, Arndt 2003).

The branding of single mothers resonated in the conservative Australian Prime Minister, John Howard’s announcement of a major inquiry conducted by House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs into the arrangements of families post separation. The announcement mooting the possibility of a “rebuttable presumption of shared care”, as well as including inquiring into child support matters (Cordeaux 2003, Jones 2003i). The announcement speech on June 24 2003 is the first recorded mention by an Australian Prime Minister of the concept of a rebuttable presumption of shared care. Howard expressed his “worry” about growing “fatherlessness” and “boys’ needing male role models” as one of the impetuses for calling the Inquiry. This same promulgation of “fatherlessness” and boys’ needing male role models, specifically their biological father was also the same theme that SPCA and FF used in their various presentations, forums and lobbying to push changes in the area of family law.

When Howard called this Inquiry he reverted to using the outdated term of “custody” which was replaced by residency in 1996 family law reforms to emphasise both parties have parental responsibility post-divorce/separation ie: shared care (Parkinson 2003). This reform was to make clear that while a child may reside largely with one parent, the responsibility or “custody” of that child's well-being is ideally shared equally between both parents. The term custody is still used extensively by FRAO.

Disinformation and stigmatisation
Since 1995 conservative politicians and men’s rights activists have advocated consistently for a need for reassertion of Christian values, and promoted the traditional family as the basis for a stable society (Lyons Forum 1995, Andrews 1999, Millet 2002). The same covert language of mother-blaming, specifically single mother families, and an increasing pressure to promote marriage was part of the language and agenda by the FF on February 10, 2003 at their Fathering Forum held at Parliament House (Muehlenberg 2002, FF 2003ii). This was done specifically in the context of pressing the need for family law reform. The fatherlessness issue was further formalised on 26 June 2003, with the launch of a policy document, “The 12 Point Plan”, at the National Strategic Conference on Fatherhood, at Parliament House Canberra, well attended by politicians, their staffers, and media -just one month prior to the announcement by Howard.

The significance of the National Fathering Forum was the disinformation about “fatherlessness” disseminated as “fact” which was further repeated by those politicians who attended, and by media, gaining a largely uncritical foothold. This political and media take-up strengthened political support for fathers’ rights groups and in particular helped persuade Howard to hold the Inquiry into family law (Albrechtsen 2003, Cadman 2003, Barnett 2003, Jones 2003, Arndt 2003i, Mottram 2003, Wroe 2003). These public statements and materials prepared by Muehlenberg and other FRAO are characterised by the confusion of correlation and causation, the reduction of multiple social variables to bivariate associations, the highly selective use of research evidence, neglect of contradictory or competing evidence, and treatment of small differences as if they were gross and absolute (Coltrane 1997, p8 in Flood 2003). The fatherless claims are bogus statistics, with no factual basis yet became a powerful weapon in asserting their fathers’ rights political agendas (Flood 2003).

To give one example, Michael Flood researched the claim that 'Boys from a fatherless home are 14 times more likely to commit rape' that was a widely reported part of the '12 Point Plan' released by the National Fatherhood Forum in June 2003. Flood found it is one of the claims commonly made by those who argue the destructive effects of father absence on families and society. Yet this statistic is an invention. Although it has no basis in fact, it is regularly repeated even affecting social policy formulation (Flood 2003, The Age 2003, Labi 2003, Cadman 2003, SA Hansard (Evans) 2003, Burke 2004).

Fatherlessness – a social crisis?
Some politicians were so convinced about a fatherless “social crisis” as to repeat the disinformation of these FROA on their own websites, and in speeches in Parliament (Cadman 2003, Barnett 2003, Senate Hansard 2003). This information was the stimulus for other politicians actively lobbying on the need for family-friendly (father) policies, and other inquiries into the status of fatherhood (FF Issue No. 57- 29th September, 2003, Cadman 2003, SA Hansard Evan AL 23/9/03, Burke 2004). Accordingly, some politicians continue to use the fatherless assertions as part of their wider conservative reassertion of boys’ and men’s rights that covers such issues as boys’ under-achievement at schools, boys (not children’s) role models, along with increased violence, men’s suicide and other arguments that FRAO support, (Bouchard et al 2003, Nelson 2002, Oakes 2004, Stepfamily Zone 2003).

The political strategy of building an alarmist discourse about the problem “fatherlessness” aims to stem the perceived permissiveness of marriage breakdown by stigmatising single mother families as “fatherless” while at the same time promoting marriage by comparing social outcomes between the traditional families and single mother families (Mead 1999). A key contributor to the FF’s The 12 Point Plan, Meuhlenbeg claims that “85 per cent of sole parent families are fatherless families” (Fatherhood Foundation 2003, Appendix), when in fact 83% of sole parent families in Australia are headed by a woman (ABS 2003). Fatherless homes/families as defined by the National Library of Australia refers to single mother families (NLA 2000). Muehlenberg’s insults discount single mother capabilities, ignores fathers who have regular residency but not primary residency, ignores those fathers who have no contact orders due to a past history of violence, and overlooks those fathers who abrogated contact with their children, or those widowed. Consistent with the remainder of The 12 Point Plan, Meuhlenberg argues in the context of the absent parent, that a “growing body of evidence... to ensure the healthy development of children is the setting of the biological two-parent family. By a number of indicators, children from intact, stable two-parent will do much better than children from broken homes of single-parent families” (Muehlenberg 2002).

Blaming single mother families for poor social outcomes of children, in part based on data from other countries is again simplistic and but avoids intersecting issues like poverty, violence, health, housing, lower economic status of women, and resilience (Flood 2003). This political strategy of creating a social panic about fatherlessness reinforced by similar statements of “worry” made by the Prime Minister, which was echoed by politicians and media and that coalesce to undermine the image of single mother family capabilities, negatively influencing the socially mediated attitudes that may be personally internalised (Perry and Whiteside 2002).

In all this “fatherless assertion” there is little acknowledgment by FRAO or politicians that some ‘male role models’ (or some female) may not be useful for boys and girls, particularly in those highly dysfunctional families where entrenched conflict, domestic violence, serious mental illness or child abuse occurs. In their pursuit of father-centric and pro-marriage agenda FRAO have ignored that it is important for children to have effective, safe and healthy parenting, which most women are quite capable of, particularly if they have adequate support and resourcing (Flood 2003). Where there are negative outcomes among children who grow up without their biological fathers, these are explained in part by selection effects – by systematic differences between the people who divorce or never marry and those who marry once and stay married. Again these differences show up as high parental conflict, substance abuse, violence, mental illness and other forms of anti-social behaviour which are associated with divorce and with poor outcomes in children, not because the parent is a single mother (Rodgers et al 2003 p6, Flood 2003).

The FF, the SPCA and many FRAO involved in lobbying for family law reform have consistently sought to link suicide rates of separated men to blocked contact with their children and/or family “disintergration” (FF2003vi). The charge that either it is the mother who blocks contact or moves too far away or to the court who decide residency (and no-contact) arrangements (King 2003, Daily Telegraph 2003, Rhoades 2002). Dads In Distress (DiD) claims ”up to 5 men suicide each week”, while the SPCA claims up to “3 fathers suicide every day” as a result of family separation” (and being unable to father daily) (SPCA 2003i p17, Miller 2003). Miller who convenes DiD arrives at his weekly figure by assuming all 1817 male suicides in Australia in 2002 are due to separation distress, a totally bogus invention. This casual link and statistical issue was investigated by the Inquiry, and the Committee’s report stated “there are no reliable statistics on why men commit suicide. The committee has made considerable effort to obtain this information but it is not available.” (HRSCFCS Parliamentary Inquiry Report 2003). The FRAO suicide assertion puts the argument that these children of separated parents grow up fatherless but if a rebuttable presumption of shared care is not implemented there will be an epidemic of suicides (Miller 2004, SPCA 2003 submission p 17). This suicide assertion seeks to make children a cure and hold women responsible for deeply depressed mentally unstable men. Such an assertion does not advocate for better mental health accessibility and affordability for men, some of whom do experience distress in the separation process (Robinson and Rodgers 2004). Further, it presents an unacceptable risk of women and children’s safety as evidenced by the distressing cases where fathers have murdered their children, occasionally the ex-wife (or other family members), and then suicided – most often in the context of their ex-wife complying with contact arrangements. Post-fatality the connection is made that many of these men had past histories of domestic violence (Passmore 2004, Jackman 2003, Flood 2003, Rathus, Rendell and Lynch 2001, Astor 1994).

Therefore, the implications of fatherlessness claims and father suicide assertions in the context of arguing for the rebuttable presumption of shared care has its largest impact on those most vulnerable families, women and children who experience violence and abuse is at the hands of their partner/father.

Spreading the word
Much of the propaganda of the SPCA’s and the FF and their supporters in the media and in parliament is published and broadcast, often without a counterbalancing voices from women’s organisations or groups, or even the views of those with family law or with social policy expertise (King 2003).

FRAO longed for an unfettered forum to air their views and sought a ways to gain greater public support. This resulted in the development in 2001 of “Dads On the Air” (DOA), a weekly broadcast community radio 2GL (outer Sydney, NSW,). Although, more significantly, for those outside the broadcast area, DOA provides web-casts and internet-based message boards aimed specifically at fathers who have separated, assuming that they are unhappy with how they, as men and fathers, are treated by the courts, and/or child support agency and/or other family law infrastructure. The SPCA’s website states that “the Shared Parenting Council of Australia is pleased to support the Dads on the Air (DOA) program on 2GLF every Monday. To hear this program as an Audio Webcast click the link below. Dads on the Air Webcast” (SPCA 2003ii). The reason behind such an endorsement of DOA is that often SPCA leadership are regularly guests of the program. FF’s President Warwick Marsh has also been a guest of DOA programs.

Additionally, since their formation both the FF and SPCA have sought to fund “an extensive publicity and advertising campaign designed to inform and educate the Australian public” (SPCA 2002iv p3, FF 2002). Both these groups have media strategies aimed at gaining greater public support for their respective and collective agendas (FF 2003i, SPCA 2002i). To this end, they are also aided by media commentators like Bettina Arndt who have actively lobbied on behalf of, and aided FRAO by giving them access to decision makers and giving them a forum to air their views and to influence public opinion (FF 2003v FF 2003 vii). Ms Arndt’s influence extends beyond her media commentator role, with her public speaking and her appointments to many consultative roles by the Coalition government in advisory groups such as the Family Pathways Advisory Group, Ministers’ Advisory group on child care and child development (Attorney-Generals Department 2000,The Age 2003).

With greater access to technology many individuals are able to link with each other, small vocal groups, or with larger national organisations like the SPCA utilising the internet and airwaves. Also, they are able to link nationally and internationally so there is an extensive internet-based network of e-list discussion groups and websites on which to further strategise in response to their grievances about family law issues and have an internet presence. Some members are on multiple lists, creating repetition with cross-postings with information appearing on several sites and lists (some 28 identified national lists associated with SPCA alone, many more international e-list affiliations). All FRAO sites and e-lists are anti-feminist.

Webcasts and websites like Dads on the Air (DOAw), e-lists like Ozydads and the shared parenting yahoo list that hosts message boards and forums plays a considerable role in supplying space and information, sometimes launching vitriolic attacks that quickly escalate into hate speech and/or incite hatred on/about individual and collective women, feminists, judiciary, government agencies and organisations that intersect with family law and/or their political agenda. For example after a DOA broadcasts, it is common to find anonymous individuals posting their grievances on message boards, including some overseas FRA posts. Easy access to email facilitates a quick and effective way of contacting opponents, fellow supporters, media and politicians and is part of an essential FRAO tool kit.

Some public sites keep the language respectful, but closed lists, and/or anonymous boards display language and rhetoric that are disturbing. Some posts involve the expression of hate, violence, threats and/or unrestrained discourse against anyone who the FRAO feels opposes their views or questions their rights. This phenomenon is not isolated to the Australian context as a Canadian study by Bouchard, Boily and Proulz found. In the context of family law where domestic violence and child abuse cases feature more prominently, particularly in the contested cases, the hate speech and the incitement of more “militant” action is an extension of the familial intimidation and violence into the public and political sectors.

As part of their hate rhetoric FRAO continue to incite one another to keep their ex-partner in litigation. For example, after the initial report of the Inquiry, many postings on various FRAO-networks incited one another to “drag their ex-partners back into the legal system to “clog it up” and “show the bitch and the [politicians/judiciary] bastards we want their child for equal time” [Ozydads e-list, posted 29/12/03]. It is impossible to assess whether these men then carry through with their threats.

Further the vitriolic language of FRAO members single out representatives of specific organisations who either represent family law system or who comment on issues associated with family law. For example Chief Justice Nicholson, HREOC Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward, even academics like men’s interest researcher Michael Flood are described as “the enemy”, “maggots”, labelled misandrists and often slandered using derogatory terms, sometimes with homophobic labels. Occasionally post describe inflicting murderous desires on these individuals, particularly the Chief Justice and his colleagues (“If I could ask for my "Family Law Court Judge" (FLCJ) to be hanged”). An example of the more extreme of emails was posted on a list moderated by a former State director of the SPCA that stated:
Posted 19/03/2004 Ozydads network
“>What about Magistrates like Lawrence of Rockingham WA who not only
>accepted false DVO's but re-established them for THREE MORE YEARS!!1
>I want to kill that cunt and god help him if I find his address”

Sometimes the FRAO e-lists and sites accuse the Courts of being like feminists who they see as dictators (“feminazis” or “feminazi puppeteers”) and who are accused of great crimes (“crimes against humanity”, “legal child abductors”). Other hate rhetoric is aimed at professionals generally, especially lawyers, social workers and even police (“Lawyer-solicitor-barrister-judge scum mafia are riding on feminazi brainwashing ordinary taxpayers into believing they are neither well-paid thieves nor child abusers”).

More hate speech and intimidation is reserved for single-mother and sole parents’ spokeswomen who are vilified, slandered, defamed and hated with ferocity (“face of feminazi evil”, “fucking fat slag blood-sucking liar”). When the media allow these women to have a counter voice the hate-speech is sometimes escalated into threats and/or outright intimidation as posts on DOA escalated until FRAO, Fathers 4 Justice’s Australian Coordinator, Trevor Arthurson (who appeared in the same 60 Minutes program) sought to incite harm against Sole Parents’ Union President, Kathleen Swinbourne with a false allegation that stated “WE SHOULD REPORT HER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES [CHILD PROTECTION AGENCY] FOR THE WAY SHE TREATED HER SON” (DOA 30/5/04).

FRAO even target hate mail towards politicians, some whom have worked hard to support and understand their agenda. After the handing down of the report of the inquiry titled, “Every Picture Tells a Story” politicians reported receiving “hate mail threats of violence and significant abuse” (Hull 2004). Mrs Hull, as woman-chair of the Inquiry, was targeted and labelled “treacherous” and politicians generally were described as “F****G politicians are LYING SCUM” for not recommending 50/50 care. Fuelling such disgruntlement following the report’s release, DOA message boards had more than 460 posts (175 pages) of posts on one message board on DOA site alone, with some posts inciting a more “militant” approach in lobbying and demonstrating their opposition to what they see as a “feminised law system created by feminists”. Fathers 4 Justice (F4J) in Australia was started in April 2004 as anger-fuelled men seeking to copy the more successful militant and intimidatory actions of their UK brethren. Other FRAO messages boards contained similar postings. Since April F4J have attempted to hold several intimidating demonstrations outside Family Courts where “decontamination suits” were worn. The rationale behind F4J suits and super-hero costumes is “looks good in media and protesters can remain anonymous” (Ozydads 2004).

Many of these men do not see their language and actions as intimidating and violent in nature in and of itself. For example a women “Kym” challenged the fathers’ rights supporters about the hate speech on DOA message board posted on 04/01/2004 and the replies attacked her personally and one rejected her claims while suggesting such hate-speech was accurately targeted against “feminazi’s are evil bitches”, that “poofter pollies..might be voted out”.

Besides targeting individuals, organisations, opponents and professions, FROA hate discourse is almost exclusively focused on the same issues that the representative organisations push politically and in the media, (ie: child support, being denied contact with children, false allegations of child abuse and/or domestic violence, PAS, that women are equally violent, biased family court).

Some dedicated groups (for example: www.StopPAS.info www.MaleVictim.net , www.SelfRep.net , www.FamilyRules.net) have emerged on particular issues such as Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), which has been rejected by reputable medical and legal experts an invented condition. Yet postings quickly accuse the ex-partner of parental alienation syndrome (PAS) labelling them “PAS-child alienators”. This dedicated internet-based group assists fathers and their children who other FRA diagnose as being PAS victims, with peer-support and advice in how to incorporate such “evidence” into their court proceedings. PAS is growing in popularity amongst members of the father's rights movement. Initially, this syndrome was used by men who have allegations or have been charged with child abuse and/or domestic violence but now it is used by men who resent what they see as their ex-partner’s “gate-keeping” the child. Mostly it’s fathers and/or their second wife who claim that the mother of their child is trying to alienate the father-child relationship as a means of denying contact and/or getting an upper hand in court. In all their rhetoric there is no recognition in any of the discussion of resolving entrenched conflict, or of the reality of incest and domestic violence.

Other vocal internet-based groups with issues are “Self-Represented Litigants”, “male victims of domestic violence”,” child abduction”, “disenfranchised”, and “fathers against child support”. For example FRAO combine their disgruntlement about child support and hatred rhetoric about the Child Support Agency (CSA). They believe that this agency and its staff are directly responsible for their misery claiming impoverishment resulting from a harsh formula (Stapleton 2000). FROA strategise and lobby to make child support payments “fairer” for payers (mostly fathers), on how to achieve a 50/50 shared care partly to abolish any child support assessment (Flanagan 2003). The FRAO logic is that if each parent shares the care including financial responsibility equally there will be no need for a child support agency intervention. Sometimes posts contain accusations that the Child Support Agency (CSA) is “hounding them to death”, or how to exploit loop-holes or win a change of assessment to reduce child support obligations. Sometime though, FRA incite one another to email the child support agency, or participate in campaigns design to show their contempt for this agency. This ties in with their unsubstantiated opinion that all men are suffering in the family law system, and that this is causing ‘an epidemic of male suicides, especially after the issuing of child support obligation/debt notices’ (Stapleton, 2003, SPCA 2003).

At other times their misogynist views encourage disparaging posts of their ex-partner, sometimes revealing highly sensitive identifying reference numbers and/or personal information about themselves and their ex-partner on publicly accessible e-lists, clearly breaching privacy laws. For example a letter to the Child Support Agency in Melbourne was posted to a DOA forum containing the case reference number, and the full names of all parties and information about his case and obligations. The father blames the mothers for his serial fatherhood and consequent child support obligations.

Commonly postings about the CSA are referring to it as the C$A or the “Collection and Suicide Agency”. For example – this email is an excerpt of a campaign’s instructions to send old dirty shirts to the Prime Minister, and failing acceptance of the shirts by the PM’s office to ensure the return address is each father’s CSA case manager, posted to world lists on 13/1/04:
“ Put the name and address of your C$A case manager as the sender on the post pack (– THIS IS IMPORTANT, IF THE PM REFUSES DELIVERY YOU DON'T WANT YOUR SHIRT RETURNED TO YOU, THIS WILL GET YOUR SHIRT SENT TO YOUR CASE MANAGER) I am a non-custodial parent. I know that the government and Child Support Agency won't be happy until they have the shirt off my back. Well here it is! I hope you're satisfied!”

Further, fathers’ rights activists set up websites or post their stories about being “driven to welfare dependency”, or “fleeing overseas” “in exile” because of child support obligations (Desbois 2004). Conversely these same individuals while claiming to love and care about their child/ren do not appear to be willing to concede that child support keep will their child out of poverty, and that their lack of contact with their child/ren is self-imposed. This is one among many inconsistent opinions and beliefs which characterises the FRA agenda. For example this posting to Ozydads network demonstrates:
“re: Phone calls, conferencing and pity
Mark wrote:
>"Its all bullshit.FUCK the legal system, go out and DO what you
must.....whatever the cost.enough is enough.The REAL men are in jail \snip\

..well, Mark, i am a 'real' man and i chose to be out of jail by hiding
overseas. to make a difference i joined F4J to fight. Lionel is a member of
f4j-international. please join him and others in WA to decontaminate your FCs.
Roger
http://www.pafe.human-rights.org/index.htm

In all the FRAO hate commentary that targets opponents, organisations, and issues most of their propaganda affects women generally. The SPCA’s woman president, Matilda Bawden, expressed it like this: “The Family Court is biased against men; self-serving feminists dominate the family law policy agenda in Australia and the Family Court itself; women habitually “lie and cheat in court” (Wenham 2003). This again feeds into a collective ideology that mothers (women) lie and cheat and are likely to make false allegations. This ideology is transparent in SPCA views and rhetoric on violence against women and child abuse, almost exclusively framed in the context of false allegations.

Adding to the assertion that women lie and cheat the SPCA seeks to negate women’s experiences of violence by arguing gender symmetry (ie: that men and women are equally aggressive towards each other and therefore domestic violence is a gender-neutral issue) (SPCA, 2003, Men’s Rights Agency, 2003). In their submission to the Inquiry the SPCA offers no discussion on how to engage perpetrators to end their violence, or how to protect victims other than through mandatory mediation and counselling. Given that separation is a high risk period for women and their children’s safety, enforced mediation has been shown to expose women to being re-abused (Astor 1994, Rathus et al 2000). Further FRAO have organised to attack campaigns that seek to end violence against women including writing to politicians, and the Advertising Standards Board to complain about the “Australia says No to violence” domestic violence campaign (Ozydads 15/6/04, 20/6/04).

Similarly FROA child protection discourse is generally in the context of biological fathers are the best protectors of their children, that most allegations are false. Although the SPCA wrote in support for speedy expedited investigations where child abuse is “established” allowing the Family Court to rule on parenting plans [presumably no contact] (SPCA, 2003). Yet FRAO are so vehement in their assertion that women and children falsely accuse child abuse that even child protection campaigners come under attack. SPCA Director Edward Dabrowski, on 29/6/04 emailed Senate candidate and child protection campaigner Hetty Johnson, “I have read you mission statement for an automatic presumption of no contact for fathers who are victims of false abuse accusations and mother's shallow objections. Even worse is that you would deny natural justice on the basis of unproven allegations. Do you really think that people will vote for a despot to enter Parliament and remove their natural rights and relationship with their children? You have been found out, uncovered, exposed”. Again the assumption is that women lie and coach children to falsely accuse fathers, as Ms Johnson’s campaign mirrors the New Zealand Bristol Inquiry recommendation of no contact while allegations are thoroughly investigated. A small disruption that preferences child safety over parental rights.

Where FRAO do recognise child abuse they are more likely to selectively cite Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) child abuse data that records the family structure the child is living in, not the relationship of the perpetrator to the child (ie the single mother family). This selectivity fits with FROA misogyny that blames the mother to reinforce their opinion that biological fathers are the best protectors and single mothers are bad for children, especially if they have re-partnered. Their rhetoric discounts the urgent need for better child protection systems and safe parenting, instead seeking to promote fathers over mothers.

FROA also try to promote fathers to the detriment and denigration of mothers by posting global news items of child abuse perpetrated by mothers, or mother’s new partner to their e-lists or boards as a way of validating this belief (Ozydads 2002-2004, Shared Parenting Forum 2003-2004). News-reports are problematic as they approach complex social issues with simplistic conclusions, and often not all the full facts are presented at the time the story goes to print/air. Additionally, news agencies are selective in the reporting of news. So while FRAO are vocal about the need for biological father’s child protection, they are not pushing for more child-friendly investigation processes and prosecutions. Nor do their policies take account that some child abuse victims are pre-verbal, or lack language skills to articulate the crime. Unless a forensic approach is taken to collecting evidence, and/or there is greater cooperation between Federal and State agencies, substantiation of abuse enough for conviction child protection in the family law system continues to be problematic (Brown et al 2001).

The FROA discourse on domestic violence and child abuse depends on denying and negating victims’ experiences. FRAO present flawed, ill-conceived and invalid rationalisation as social policy solutions particularly when it comes to protecting victims of abuse and violence in familial circumstance. So entrenched is FRAO assertion of false allegation combined with selectivity about data that many FRAO ignore cases of child fatalities, and those women murdered by violent ex-partners even though these mothers do comply with contact-orders even when their safety is at risk [(for example: Bartley case 2002 (mother shot dead at handover), Kongon-Poulson case 2003 (2 infants and their grandfather killed, Dalton case 2004 (2 infants smothered by suicide father prior to handover)]. Several studies and pilot programs like Magellan have shown FRAO assertions to have no substance and that without proper Federal-State cooperative funding and investigations women and children’s safety will continue to be at risk (Brown et al 1998, 2001).

Hate propaganda, bogus and statistical inventions overlooked.
Given there is much evidence of hate propaganda, bogus statistics and dodgy research underpinning FROA policy, it is alarming that these groups are continuing to influence much of the debate and public discourse about family law reforms and be so accepted by politicians.

The hate literature and extremism is generally being ignored on both sides of politics. Support for FRAO has come from both houses of Parliament; Government Ministers and from a number of ALP, Independent and minor parties members (FF 2003v). This can be explained in part by constituency case load where fathers are more likely to complain. Further explanation may be found among the substantial divorce rate of politicians (majority male) so father discontentment with the family law system and on-going child support resonates with some of the personal life experiences of those politicians who are non-resident payers, or second-wives.

Further explanation of FROA rhetoric may be found in the personal interpretation of the suicide of Greg Wilton (Federal ALP member for Isaacs). There were many politicians on both sides of the House who were affected deeply by the events and his death. Liberal South Australian Senator Jeannie Ferris, who has helped SPCA along with NSW Backbencher Ken Ticehurst and Alan Cadman who also assisted FF, have spoken of being deeply affected by Mr Wilton’s suicide, which came two weeks after his attempted murder-suicide that was thwarted by police. Media reports simplistically blamed his death on marriage dissolution, child support and/or lack of contact but neglected to acknowledge his depression (mental illness) may have contributed to the separation/marriage dissolution in the first place (Rodgers 2004). Many politicians also fail to recognise men’s lack of access and poor funding of mental health support has meant that many men’s problems compounded to breaking point and mental illness is highly featured in divorce cases. There is an urgent need to de-stigmatise mental illness, and encourage those suffering depression and other mental disorders to seek out and access help. The safety needs of children are not best met by being cared for by a suicidal parent.

In reviewing some hundred plus media stories, many media commentators were found to have acted as customary spokespersons for the masculinist discourse (Bouchard et al 2003, Arndt 1999, Arndt 2002, Arndt 2003, Stapleton 2003, Jackman 2003, King 2003). While there are some attempts to canvass alternative opinions, largely the debate of a rebuttable presumption of shared care was reported from the “fathers losing out” perspective, often with an impassioned sense of grief (Overton 2004, Daly 2004, Horin 2003) and often sidelining domestic violence issues with incest/child abuse taboo. In taking a sensationalist approach encouraging “gender wars” the media gains improved ratings and sales but neglects social obligations. Further with the media reluctant to engage constructively on social relationships, they influence and prejudice the socially mediated attitudes and make invisible constructive discourse on building safe familial victims of violence.

It seems politicians and media have ignored men continue to be the dominant social group. The FRAO portrayal of fathers as an underclass who suffers discrimination denies the gendered social inequalities between men and women. It masks the gendered social, political and economic divisions of power where women still run second to men (Bouchard et al 2003).

Of further concern that such the false claims, hate language and violence supportive behaviour by FRAO is being overlooked by many politicians, bureaucrats and administrators in the context of the family law, policy making and this is also resulting in judicial pressure. While inflammatory criticism about alleged “collusion and corruption in the family law” continue unabated and while the leaders of FRAO do not engage their members to desist from posting such hate mail Justice Nicholson’s words caution all to scrutinise family law lobbying of FRAO. Such is the discourse of hatred and false claims of gender symmetry when it comes to sexual abuse and violence against women by FRAO that politicians have interfered in education campaigns that seek to lower or end violence in intimate relationships (Wallace 16/12/03, Harvey 17/12/03). This political intervention, together with the denial of hatred and threats against women generally, and FRAO opponents signals the presence of a backlash. This backlash constitutes an impediment to engaging men to recognise and take responsibility for their behaviour and language to ensure safety from violence for all.

So the question remains for politicians to answer why are FRAO gaining such influence and open access, when there is clear evidence of hatred and targeting of women and those involved in family law? There is a real need for politicians and media to assert women's rights to expression and political power and to live without threats fear and hatred. The political acceptance and promotion of the claims of fatherlessness insults those non-resident fathers who have positive influence and positive relationship with their child/ren. Also it undermines adoptive, step and blended families and continues to further stigmatise single mother households. None of this judgement and stigmatisation of selected families is in children’s best interests.

Recommendations:
In the context of the continued and growing use of the internet by FRAO to develop misogynist sites inciting hatred, and the number of growing discussion groups used to promote anti-mother propaganda, it is suggested that closer monitoring of these groups be undertaken by either a hate watch organisation, Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) or by HREOC to focus on gender social relations (Bouchard et al 2003). Such monitoring should be used to provide warnings to government agencies such as the Child Support Agency and the Family Court, also politicians, and non government organisations which are the target of hate actions. Authors of hate mail and incitements to violence should be investigated and prosecuted for promoting violence. Persistent offenders should be identified on a national security register.

The data from men’s hate speech could be collated and used to inform social policy development and women’s status. Further that a family law media awareness network should be established for those who intercept with the family law system to provide accurate information and to counter misinformation and provided informed information about family law and gender social relations. For example FRAO claims that fathers are subject to bias in family law is a provably false claim that is wrongly used to recruit men to the FRAO agenda and to discourage them from reaching positive workable post-separation parenting arrangements solely in order to support the FRAO case. Users of the family law system should not have to interpret it from a fathers’ rights framework but one from the perspective of child safety and best interests.

Also it is proposed that the “Window on Women” site be the central information, reference and factual data site for journalists and academics and others to access on the status of women in various areas such as family law. Further that publication of gendered data must always be supported by analyses that provided the context, since without it the data only fuels the masculinist discourses. This site and social responsibility should be broadly publicised. Also the establishment of a strategy to develop and support the dissemination by women’s groups of positive egalitarian messages to balance masculinist discourse and FRA propaganda.
References
Nicholson A. Chief Justice, 1995 Enhancing Access to Justice, Family Court of Australia Second National Conference Papers, 2-23 September, Family Court of Australia. P1.

Fatherhood Foundation 2002 About Us -History, http://www.fathersonline.org/about/index.html
Fatherhood Foundation 2002i Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue Issue No.9-28 October, 2002.
Fatherhood Foundation 2003, The 12 Point Plan
Fatherhood Foundation 2003i Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue Issue No. 44-30th June, 2003
Fatherhood Foundation 2003ii Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue No. 24-10th February, 2003.
Fatherhood Foundation 2003iii Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue No 43-23 June, 2003.
Fatherhood Foundation 2003iv National Fathering Forum Delegates List August 15, 2003.
Fatherhood Foundation 2003v Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue No. 50-11 August, 2003
Fatherhood Foundation 2003vi Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue No. 36-5th May, 2003
Fatherhood Foundation 2003vii Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue No. 57- 29th September, 2003
Wenham Margaret 2003i 50-50 Vision 11/07/03 Courier Mail, Brisbane 2003.

Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2002i SPCA Media Release 22 October 2002
Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2002ii SPCA Media Release November 18, 2002.
Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2002iii SPCA News Update Vol 1 Issue 2, 30 November 2002 Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2002iv SPCA News Update Vol 1 Issue 1, 2002. 28 October 2002 p3.
Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2003 Affiliate Organisations http://www.spca.org.au/
accessed 1/6/04
Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2003i Submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangements in the event of Family Separation p17
Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2003ii www.spca.org.au home page accessed 1/6/04

West William, 2003, New moves to reduce divorce rate. Kairos Catholic Journal Vol 14 No 10 15 June 2003. Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne.

Muehlenberg Bill, 2004 Why Families Are In Strife. Family World News June 2004. article 1, Australian Christian Network. http://www.pastornet.net.au/fwn/2004/jun/art11.html

Mottram Murray, 2003, Why Howard suddenly started to talk about custody battles 21 June 2003 The Age.

Cassidy Frank 2002, Back-Bench Committee To Press For Family Law Changes 17/11/02 Canberra Times

Glancy Kevin, 2002i Spoils of Post Marriage Warfare, 14 November 2002 Men’s Rights Agency
http://www.mensrights.com.au/page21h.htm (accessed 1/6/04),
Glancy Kevin, 2002ii, in Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue No. 11-11th Nov, 2002

Flood Michael 2003 Fatherhood and Fatherlessness. The Australia Institute, Discussion Paper No. 59, November, pp. 21-23.

The Lyons Forum, 1995. Empowering Australian Families, Parliament House Canberra.

Andrews Kevin 1999, Developing a National Family Policy, Family Matters No 54 Spring 1999, Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Crabb Annabel 2003, Right Forms Lobby Group. 22/9/03 The Age Melbourne. Fairfax Press. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/21/1064082866149.html

Jones Alan 2003. Fatherlessness, 11 December 2003. Today Show Editorial Channel 9 Network and 2GB.

The Age (AAP-unattributed) 2003 'Boys with absent fathers 'more likely to rape',' The Age, 26 June 2003

The Daily Telegraph 2003, Father's Torment The Daily Telegraph 7th July 2003.

Albrechtsen Janet 2003, Fathers Are Not Optional 7th May 2003, The Australian.

Arndt Bettina 2002 The US recognises the peril of absent fathers. Why can't we? December 9, 2002 The Age.

Cordeaux Alex 2003, Interview with the Prime Minister. 5DN 19/6/03

Jones Alan 2003i, Interview with the Prime Minister 2GB 20/6/03

Parkinson Patrick, 2003, Custody Battle About the House September – October 2003 p 16-19 Parliament House Canberra.

Millet Michael, 2002, Howard Has Faith in God Squad: Religion is playing a stronger role in politics as family values push economic issues to the edge. 16/8/02 Sydney Morning Herald.

Cadman Alan 2003, Fathering for the Future accessed on 5/12/03 http://www.alancadman.com.au/viewarticle.asp?intarticleid=892

Barnett Guy 2003, http://guybarnett.com/article.asp?artid=179 accessed on 5/12/03

Labi Sharon 2003, Fatherless boys 'more likely' to rape 26/06/03 p Adelaide Advertiser, also found
News.com.au

Arndt Bettina 2003i To care for the kids, keep dad in the picture 20 June 2003 Sydney Morning Herald (also published as -Fathers may get justice at last 20 June 2003, The Age)

Wroe David, 2003, Male politicians further fathers' cause June 27 2003 The Age Canberra

South Australian Hansard 2003, speech by Hon A L Evans, September 24 2003.

Burke Jacqui, 2004, Weekly Hansard 12 February 2004 Debates of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory Fifth Assembly p267

Bouchard P, Boily I and Proulx M-C 2003, School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse 2003. http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/0662882857/200303_0662882857_2_e.html

Nelson Brendon 2002, www.brendannelson.com.au/speakfrank/article.asp?ID=10

Oakes Laurie 2004, Interview Larry Anthony May 23, 2004. Sunday, Nine Network.
http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/political_transcripts/article_1561.asp?MSID=58fe26c590f34689bd5dda0026a2214f accessed 1/6/04

Stepfamily Zone 2003 accessed 1/6/04
www.stepfamily.asn.au/cgi-bin/ index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=704
http://www.stepfamily.asn.au/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=589

Mead Lawrence 1999 Welfare reform and the Family, Family Matters No.54 Spring/Summer Page 1 Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2003), ‘Family and Community Living Arrangements: Changing families’, Australia Social Trends, Australian Bureau of Statistics downloaded www.abs.gov.au 1/06/04

National Library of Australia 2000, s

Muelenberg Bill 2002, The case for the two-parent family: part 1 NATIONAL OBSERVER: AUSTRALIA AND WORLD AFFAIRS Cover date Autumn 2002 Vol.52 Pages 44-49

Perry Della and Whitemore Ruth, 2002 Recontextualising Violence: Children, 'Disability' and Gender, People 1st Program WA.

Rodgers Bryan, Blewitt Kelly, Jacomb Patricia, Rosenman Stephen 2003 Childhood Adversity and Abuse and Mental Health in Adult Life. Paper presented at 8th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Feb 2003.

King Madonna 2003, Dad's the other word, Tuesday View with Madonna King, 24jun 2003 Courier Mail, Queensland.

The Daily Telegraph (unattributed) Father's Torment - Monday, 7th July 2003 Daily Telegraph, Sydney.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs Parliamentary Inquiry Report 2003 Every Picture Tells a Story, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs Inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation. See Chapter 3, page 56, paragraph 3.48, Parliament House, Canberra.

Rhoades, Helen (2002) ‘The “No Contact Mother”: Reconstructions of motherhood in the era of the “new father”, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 16: 71-94.

Miller Tony 2003, Dads In Distress Bare Facts accessed 1/12/03 http://www.dadsindistress.asn.au/information.html

Miller Tony 2004 Dads In Distress Fundraising Night Dural NSW email-18 April 2004 Ozydads Network

Robinson Elly and Rodgers Bryan 2004, Mental Health & Changing Families http://www.anu.edu.au/cmhr/changingfamilies.php

Passmore Daryl, 2004 The Ultimate Revenge, The Sunday Mail, 13 Jun04 p1 Queensland.

Jackman Christine 2003, When Dads get Deadly 17 September 2003 The Australian.

Rathus Zoe, Rendell Kathryn and Lynch A 2000 An unacceptable risk: A Report on child contact arrangements where there is violence in the family, Brisbane, Women’s Legal Service.
Astor, H. 1994 ‘Swimming Against the Tide: Keeping Violent Men out of Mediation’, in J. Stubbs, (ed.) Women, Male Violence and the Law, Sydney, Federation Press.

Attorney-Generals’ Department 2000, Members of Family Pathways Advisory Group Family Law and Legal Assistance Division 2003. http://www.law.gov.au/www/familylawHome.nsf/Web+Pages/B18ABBD3FEDA9EF6CA256C210019BA5D?OpenDocument

The Age (declaration of interest underneath article) by Arndt, Bettina, 2003. A Chilling truth about child care 5/2/03 The Age Melbourne Fairfax Press http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/04/1044318606737.html

Stapleton John Problem ' Parents ' Doin’ Time The Australian - Focus Section - Saturday, 8th April 2000

Flanagan John, 2003 Fatherlessness in single parent families and the solutions Australian Social Policy Conference 2003.Fairness in Child Support

Men’s Rights Agency, 1999, quoting Look Who Doesn't Want A Divorce (Mclean Candis 1999, ALBERTA REPORT January 11, 1999.

Desbois Roger 2004 accessed http://www.pafe.human-rights.org/index.htm (1/6/04) (Ozydads Network)

Brown, Thea, Frederico M, Hewitt L, Sheehan R. 1998. Violence in Families: Report Number One, The Management of Child Abuse Allegations in Custody and Access Disputes in the Family Court of Australia, Family Violence and Family Court research Program, Monash University, Clayton, Vic. pp. 112.

Brown Thea, with Sheehan R, Frederico M, Hewitt L 2001. Violence in Families: Report Number Four, Resolving Violence to Children, an Evaluation of Project Magellan, Family Violence and Family Court Research Program, Monash University, Clayton Vic., pp.180.

Rodgers Bryan 2004, Mental Health and the Family Law System, Seminar Social Policy in the City 18 March 2004, Mission Australia Smith Family & SPRC UNSW

Overton Peter 2004, What Men Want –60 Minutes, May 23, 2004 Nine Network.

Dally Helen 2004, Caught in the Middle –Sunday March 7, 2004 Nine Network.

Horin Adele 2004, First, offer women some safety September 20, 2003 Sydney Morning Herald.

Wallace Christine 2003, 'Key Libs can anti-domestic violence ad campaign', The Australian Dec 16, 03
Harvey Michael 2003, ‘$15 M ad blitz is dropped' Herald Sun Dec 17, 03.

http://www.kidsindistress.org.au/files/Kids-in-Distress-the-politics-of-father-rights-activists.php