Thursday, February 25, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Why Governments Love Feminism?
Feminism has very little to do with equality between the genders, and it also
has very little to do with the rights of women.
First and foremost, feminism is about various groups seeking to acquire power
and money, and to build huge self-serving empires in which millions - literally
millions - of people nowadays have a vested interest - a vested interest that
is, in fact, highly detrimental to those societies in which these people
operate.
To see how their game is played, I just want you to imagine a society - a
somewhat idealised society - wherein the women are happy to spend their days
being closely associated with their homes and their children, while the young
men and the fathers are reasonably happy to troop off to the workplace -
wherever this might be.
And, further, I want you to imagine that most of the people in this society are
mostly quite content with their situation.
In other words, it is a reasonably happy place.
And now the question that I want you to contemplate very deeply is this one.
What's in it for government?
How can government - and government workers - benefit from having to exist
within a society of people who seem to be quite happy and at peace with each
other?
On what grounds can the government say to the people, "You need more government.
Give us more tax money."
Well, clearly, in such an idyllic society, it would be very difficult indeed to
persuade the people to part with more of their own resources - acquired through
their own labours - in order to fund 'more government'.
However, if this reasonably happy society can be disrupted by some force or
other - some force that induces 'disharmony' within the population - an increase
in crime, say - then the government will find it much easier to extract a bigger
piece of the society's pie. For example, if there is an increase in crime, the
people will far more readily agree to fund a bigger police force. If the men and
women start fighting against each other, and begin to split apart, with married
couples getting divorced, then the government can justify extracting further
resources from the people in order to create a larger social services workforce
to look after the women and children who are now on their own.
And the point that I am trying to get across here is this.
Governments benefit not by the people being at peace with each other, but by
them being at war with each other in some way.
Of course, governments can benefit from many other things too, but the point
here is this. Governments clearly benefit from what I shall henceforth simply
call 'disharmony' - societal disharmony; such as crime.
And because governments have massive power in comparison to ordinary
individuals, they will tend to use this power to create more and more societal
disharmony - with much success. Of course they will do this. Why? Well, because
governments, and millions of government workers, benefit from disharmony, and
they are not going to use their huge collective force to undermine themselves -
which reducing 'disharmony' would do.
At the very least, government workers do not want to lose their funding, their
jobs, their security, their pensions etc etc etc. And so they need to be
perceived to be needed.
Better still for them, are bigger empires with bigger salaries, and much more
status and power.
After all, in this respect, they are no different from anyone else!
And, collectively, by hook or by crook, these government workers can, and will,
create the most monumental force in order to get these various benefits for
themselves; a force that the people simply cannot counter.
Indeed, it would be bordering on the preposterous to believe that such an
enormous body of government workers would not exert a force in a direction from
which they, themselves, would benefit.
After all, these people are not gods. They are human beings!
In a nutshell: These government workers want bigger empires with bigger salaries
and bigger pensions. They want more status and more power. And, collectively,
they will exert such a huge force that no-one can actually stop them from
getting these things; as the monumental growth in government over the past 120
years or so in the west has clearly shown. (Central governments have grown more
than one hundred-fold over the past 120 years.)
Now, because the main aim of feminists is to create as much disharmony as
possible between men and women in order to fund their own empires, governments
just love them; because, remember; for governments, the more disharmony, the
better.
So let us return to our rather over-simplified society, and see what happens
when married couples with children within this reasonably-happy place start more
often to divorce and to separate.
Well, typically, the men will go off and live on their own somewhere, but they
will continue working. The women, however, will have to choose some combination
of going out to work and staying at home with the children.
If the women decide to stay at home, then they must be given a source of income
by the government. This means that the government must take away money from
others in order to fund them. And, already, this means creating a whole system
of laws involving lawyers, judges, administrators, social assessors, financial
offices and various allied bureaucratic systems.
In other words, divorce and separation provide a whole plethora of benefits for
governments and their workers.
Furthermore, of course, no-one in the population wants to see women and children
left destitute, and so government now gets the benefit of some further popular
support for its endeavours. Thus, the government also wins on this score.
And, of course, the women who are put into this position with their children are
now at the mercy of the government.
In other words, they become dependent on the government; which is also great for
government.
"If you women do not vote for us, then you will get a smaller income from the
government!"
Now, of course, women who have divorced - whether or not they have children -
might instead decide to go out to work; in which case the government wins yet
again - because it now has more workers from whom it can take money through the
tax system.
In other words, encouraging divorce and separation is a winning strategy for
government.
Indeed, it is win-win all the way.
And, most importantly, this remains true whether or not the women have children,
and whether or not they go out to work. It is the growing division between men
and women that is the key to the government's winning strategy.
In summary, therefore, government has an enormous amount to gain by increasing
the divide between men and women, because this enables government workers to
justify the creation and the controlling of many large empires, they can more
easily extract higher taxes, they can tax more people, they can make more people
dependent upon them, and they can gain themselves some extra popular support.
But this is just the beginning.
Many, many further benefits accrue to the government when the close
relationships between men and women are broken apart. For example, the negative
social consequences of not having strong fathers around their children are
positively huge. These tend to impact most directly on boys, but the
repercussions reverberate across the whole of society - for decades. For
example, youngsters - both girls and boys - without fathers in the home are far
more likely to ...
... live in poverty and deprivation, ... be troublesome in school, ... have more
difficulty getting along with others, ... have more health problems, ... suffer
from physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse, ... run away from home, ... get
sexual diseases, ... become teenage parents, ... offend against the law, ...
smoke, drink alcohol and take drugs, ... play truant from school, ... be
excluded from school, ... behave violently, ... give up on education at an early
age, ... make poor adjustments to adulthood, ... attain little in the way of
qualifications, ... experience unemployment, ... have low incomes, ... be on
welfare, ... experience homelessness, ... go to jail, ... suffer from long term
emotional and psychological problems, ... engage only in casual relationships,
... have children outside marriage or, indeed, outside any partnership.
Indeed, a whole cascade of social problems - i.e. a great deal of 'disharmony' -
is generated by the effects of youngsters not having fathers around.
But, clearly, governments benefit fantastically from this; because governments
can use these enormous problems to justify even further increases in both taxes
and power.
After all, the people want to be protected from all the negative social
consequences of fatherlessness - and, of course, the victims themselves could
clearly do with a bit of extra help.
And so governments can justify (and, hence, finagle and extract) much more money
from the people in order to acquire more police officers, more prison officers,
more probation officers, more welfare officers, more lawyers, judges and other
courtroom staff, more psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, doctors, nurses,
social workers, remedial educationalists and, indeed, even more street cleaners!
- and, of course, many, many more bureaucrats to monitor and to exert control in
all of these areas.
And the increases in taxes and power that governments can suck up to themselves
as a result these negative social consequences really are huge.
And, if you can believe it, I have not yet even mentioned all those lawyers,
judges and bureaucrats who are part of the divorce system itself; together with
all those professionals who have to get involved in matters to do with alimony,
child custody and child support. Indeed, even if we forget about all the
numerous social and personal problems mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the
divorce industry itself is, nowadays, a multi-billion dollar industry.
Furthermore, of course, as far as life in the later years is concerned, breaking
down the relationships between men and women ensures that old people and sick
people are less likely to receive help from those who are close to them,
because, quite simply, fewer people end up being close to them. And this often
means that these vulnerable people are either abandoned to waste away on their
own, or they are put into care homes and hospitals - often run by government -
where the staff tend to treat them with, at best, clinical disinterest. (Indeed,
a recent report in the UK stated that the most common problems for old people
stem from loneliness and from living alone.)
Thus, one can summarise the situation as follows. Breaking apart the
relationships between men and women creates an absolute gold mine for
government. From childhood to old age, relationship breakdowns cause numerous
problems for the whole of society, but they give rise to numerous benefits for
government.
Now, all this is not to say that everything that the government does is bad -
particularly at the micro level.
Not at all.
For example, it is clearly the case that some men and women do need to be kept
away from each other. We do need our governments to help women and children who
are on their own. We do need care homes and hospitals for old and sick people.
We do need police officers and prisons. And so on.
But none of this alters the fact that the more do the relationships between men
and women break down, the more does the government benefit. And it benefits
hugely - as per above.
And you really would have to stretch your credulity to ridiculous levels to
believe that the millions of workers who are employed by government are
beavering away to destroy the huge 'social/personal/legal/financial industries'
from which they, themselves, have so much to gain.
Furthermore, we have clearly seen western governments - particularly left-wing
governments - using their enormous power over the years to encourage people's
relationships to break down.
Indeed, these governments have left almost no stone unturned in their quest to
damage people's relationships.
They have spent billions of dollars flooding the population with false
statistics concerning 'relationship abuse' of various kinds, with the legal
language being purposely distorted to make out that women are perpetually being
violated by men in some way. For example, they have fudged the definitions of
various types of 'abuse' to such a ludicrous extent that, for example,
criticising a woman's mother can nowadays be seen as an act of violence -
'domestic violence' - calling someone 'dear' as an act of sexual harassment, and
engaging in consensual sex which is later regretted as an act of rape. (The idea
behind all these things is to stir up both hatred towards men and a fear of men,
and it is also designed to encourage as many women as possible to make false
allegations of 'abuse'.) They have spent billions of dollars funding numerous
victim groups that seem to spend more time dispensing anti-male propaganda than
helping any alleged victims. They have
engaged in and/or funded numerous media campaigns designed to portray all men
as being likely to be abusive towards women and children in some way. And
governments continue to offer to women numerous incentives - financial and
otherwise - to make false allegations.
They have spent even more billions on 'welfare' to make men as redundant as
possible when it comes to women and the family. They have purposely debased and
feminised the educational system so that our young men achieve much less
educationally than do our young women - something that stymies future
relationships on a massive scale given that women tend to prefer partners who
are more educated than them. They have been discriminating against men in the
workplace at all levels (to reduce the value of men) under the spurious grounds
that women themselves were being discriminated against by men. They have reduced
the pay of men in numerous jobs controlled by government simply on the grounds
that men tend to be drawn to those jobs more so than are women, and they have
done the reverse for those jobs to which women tend more to be drawn. (The
ridiculous argument currently being tested out on the population is that,
"productivity, hard work and profit are
'old-fashioned' ways of assessing what someone should be paid.") They have
corrupted the law to such an extent that all men are now at the mercy of their
partners when it comes to false allegations of 'abuse', child custody issues and
ridiculously high alimony payouts - the idea being to tempt women into breaking
their relationships because they have little to lose and often very much to gain
by doing so - and, of course, to make men fearful of even embarking on any
long-term relationships. They have corrupted the justice system to such an
extent when it comes to the relationships between men and children that it is
now extremely unwise for men to have anything to do with children.
And, in our schools, children even as young as eight are being indoctrinated
with the feminist-inspired nonsense that men have oppressed women for thousands
of years.
Indeed, it is also now being argued - with much success - that intimates should
treat each other as if they were complete strangers. For example, Stranger Rape
is now said to be just as bad as Relationship Rape. Photographing your own child
being breastfed is said to be producing child pornography. On and on it goes.
And it seems quite clear to me that the ultimate aim is to force people to treat
each other as if they were complete strangers by putting them at some kind of
significant legal risk if they do not do so. Even a music teacher who places a
child's hands correctly on the instrument now risks job suspension and abuse
allegations.
The whole idea is to cut out, or to tarnish with suspicion, any closeness - no
matter how slight - that might exist between people.
Indeed, I cannot think of any law enacted over the past three decades that
impacts upon people's close relationships - either directly or indirectly - that
has not been designed to encourage those relationships to break down.
And, essentially, governments have been breaking down the relationships between
people so that they can elbow their way deeper and deeper into the connections -
social, personal and financial - that once bonded people together.
Furthermore, if one stands back to look at the overall picture that has been
emerging over the past few decades, two things become very clear.
Firstly, the motives of government workers in this area have precious little to
do with increasing the welfare of the people. On the contrary, these motives are
often malicious, and they are mostly to do with government workers seeking to
serve themselves in some way by causing 'disharmony'; with the phrase "divide
and rule" encapsulating much of what has been going on. (Indeed, one only has to
look at how western governments have been at the forefront of encouraging
fatherlessness - and, hence, the numerous consequent social problems mentioned
above - over the past four decades to see just how malicious they have been.)
Secondly, western governments are now so large (employing directly or indirectly
some 20% of the entire population) that government workers, themselves, now
represent the most enormous political force for 'big government'; which,
essentially, means left-wing government. As such, we really no longer live in
'democracies'.
For example, when left-wing US politicians like Joe Biden pump billions of
dollars into groups associated with VAWA, he is not just handing enormous
amounts of our money over to services that provide aid to victims of domestic
violence. He is, in fact, handing out this money to numerous groups of
government workers across America who rely on this money for their jobs and
their pensions, and who will, unsurprisingly, give their political support to
Joe Biden.
And, of course, there are millions of other government workers (school teachers,
social workers, academics etc etc) who are also going to support left-wing
government for precisely the same self-serving reasons.
(As just one example of this,many academics who rely on government funding are
going to drum up evidence to support the government's point of view, or their
funding is going to disappear.)
And, just as importantly, these millions of workers will also provide and
promote political propaganda that is designed to serve themselves; with these
government workers now so entrenched in almost every area of life that their
propaganda nowadays pours into the minds of the population from almost every
information source imaginable - even at school.
(Furthermore, of course, many billions of these dollars go directly into
providing social welfare of some kind; thus ensuring that the millions of people
who benefit from this will vote for left-wing government.)
The upshot is that the population is mostly nowadays very heavily infected with
the view that policies that promote bigger and more powerful government are the
best policies for the people; and so, of course, the people tend to vote for
them.
But the people are being hoodwinked, because they are not being told the truth.
They are being deluged with self-serving propaganda from many self-serving
sources, and the evidence that these sources are deceiving them on numerous
fronts, and in very many ways, is just irrefutable.
Indeed, I am writing this during a time in which the entire world is facing an
enormous economic crisis, and the world's leaders have just decided to bail out
various banking and financial systems with two trillion dollars of taxpayer's
money. Now, apart from the huge burden that this will place on the taxpayers,
and on future taxpayers, the economic downturn is going to result in the loss of
thousands of jobs, the pensions of those who work in the private sector are
going to be slashed - for many years to come - and many businesses are going to
flounder and fail.
But if you look at what most of the politicians on both sides of the political
spectrum are doing in order to help alleviate this situation, there is one
feature that stands out rather starkly. And it can be encapsulated in a phrase
that has been used recently by politicians time and time again across the
western world: "We must not cut public services in these most difficult times."
Well, this is just another way of saying that, no matter how bad are the
economic circumstances for everyone else, government services (i.e. government,
and government workers) must not be allowed to be affected by them. In other
words, government and government workers must be insulated from all the economic
problems. It is those who work outside of government who must bear most of the
costs.
In other words, government workers now clearly form a new protected and
privileged aristocracy - an aristocracy that is to be protected even from the
most devastating of economic circumstances.
No matter how big the crisis - and the current one is huge - their jobs and
their salaries must not be cut, and their pensions must be guaranteed through
thick and thin - regardless of the cost to everyone else, and regardless of how
much everyone else is struggling to make ends meet for themselves, for their
families, and for their futures.
But who can oppose this enormous beast of government? - this self-serving
organism?
After all, the government has hundreds of billions of dollars at its disposal -
every year - vast bureaucratic empires that invade every corner of our lives,
and millions of organised people working for it. Furthermore, it is the
government that makes the laws.
So, who can compete with it?
And who can compete with the vast resources of government when it comes to
'debating the issues' and putting across a particular point of view?
Well, there is no other organism that comes even close to being able to compete
with this governmental beast.
A hundred years ago, western governments were very small indeed when compared to
today. And, loosely speaking, the right represented the wealthy and the
ever-growing number of powerful industrialists and businessmen, and the left
represented the ordinary working people and the impoverished.
Those on the right reckoned that the people would be better served by allowing
them to get on with the job of creating wealth and power, while those on the
left reckoned that government should intervene more directly, and more often, to
help those who were the most in need.
Translated into today's world, this could be loosely described as the big,
powerful businesses being represented by those on the right, and the ordinary
people themselves being represented by those on the left.
But times have changed quite dramatically since those far-off days; and there is
now a new kid on the block.
Government itself.
And this new kid is now far more powerful than 'the businesses' or 'the people'
- by a very long way.
Indeed, not only does this new kid have the muscle power, the organisational
power, the financial power and the legal power to get what he wants, he also has
the propaganda power to persuade the people of his point of view.
And it is absolutely clear that this new kid has been using this enormous power
to serve himself.
Just take a look at how western governments have grown over the past 100 years -
or even over the past 10 years. Look at the ever-increasing tax take. Look at
the ever-increasing numbers of people employed by government. Look at the
thousands upon thousands of laws, regulations, restrictions and directives that
are annually being imposed by western governments on their own peoples.
These governments just grow and grow and grow - not only in terms of size, but
also in terms of power and wealth. And they are infiltrating themselves into
every aspect of people's lives; controlling, monitoring, regulating, directing,
stipulating, coercing - always to an ever-greater extent.
But who can stop them?
For example, who can compete with the billions of dollars that the left-wing Joe
Bidens of this world pour into left-wing causes, left-wing jobs, left-wing
benefits and, hence, into left-wing propaganda and left-wing votes for even
bigger government?
Who has the money to compete with this?
No-one, and no organisation, has a hope of competing with such a force.
Indeed, and for example, despite the fact that Americans are renowned the world
over for their almost manic belief in small government and individual liberty,
this has not stopped their federal government from growing and growing and,
indeed, from walking all over them.
And the reason for this is because western governments have grown far too
powerful.
But who can be surprised by this given that millions of government workers with
huge resources and millions of benefit recipients will tend to promote their own
interests rather than those of 'business' or 'the people'?
A hundred years ago it was all different.
The government tax take was miniscule, the rules and regulations were few, and
the numbers of government workers and benefit recipients were both small, and
so, for example, when the government handed out money to its own workers in
order to pursue some agenda or other, the efforts of these workers, their
ability to influence people, and the number of votes that the government
workers, themselves, were able to cast in elections were all relatively small in
comparison to what 'the people' could do in such areas.
But now, these government workers have around 20% of the vote, and they also
have resources that are absolutely unassailable.
Indeed, in order to drum this point home, just imagine if you had one billion
dollars annually to distribute to whomsoever you wished. And, further, imagine
that, every year, you distributed this one billion dollars to people whose work
supported some activist group. You can surely imagine just how large would be
the impact that this activist group would then be able to make, right across the
country.
Just one billion dollars will do!
But the Joe Bidens of this world nowadays distribute hundreds of billions of
dollars every year to government workers and to benefit recipients who are bound
to support 'the government' in order to benefit themselves.
(And, of course, there is no other group that can possibly compete with a
left-wing government's power to, quite frankly, 'bribe' a few million voters
with benefits.)
And the upshot has been that western governments have been able, very
successfully, to bamboozle the public into believing in - and 'voting' for -
those ideas and notions that, in fact, are mostly of benefit to government,
rather than of benefit to the people; the purposeful breaking down of
relationships being just one example of this.
Indeed, when it comes to men's issues, we have seen western governments of all
persuasions lying, fudging, deceiving, ignoring, blocking and cheating in so
many areas - always in a direction of causing more problems for men, women and
children when it comes to their relationships - that it is simply impossible to
escape the conclusion that damaging people's relationships is a major aim of
western governments.
And the reason for this is very clear.
As I mentioned earlier in connection with our fictional idyllic society,
damaging the relationships between people creates an absolute goldmine for
western governments. It is a perpetual lottery jackpot win.
And, of course, there are many other ways through which governments can
encourage relationships to break down - ways that go beyond those to do with
close personal relationships. For example, encouraging excessive immigration
causes relationships within communities to become far more tenuous and
uncertain. And, of course, the government will benefit from this as a result of
the increasing disharmony and uncertainty that this brings about. Furthermore,
the government will benefit whether the immigrants are productive or disruptive.
If they are productive, the government gets more tax dollars. If they are
disruptive, then the government can justify more taxes and more power to deal
with the ensuing problems.
Thus, excessive immigration is also win-win all the way for government.
And then there are the various laws to do with hate speech and with 'offending'
people. These tend to distance people from each other because these laws
encourage certain types of people to use the law in even the most trivial of
circumstances.
The whole idea is, clearly, to break apart as much as possible any strong sense
of cohesion and/or security that people might have with each other.
Indeed, the ways in which this perpetual lottery jackpot win can be collected is
becoming increasingly recognised and appreciated by governments all over the
world - which is why feminism, and feminist policies, are now being taken up so
avidly by them - and so quickly.
Time and time again, you can hear one politician promoting some new
feminist-inspired notion in the USA on Monday, and by Wednesday the same notion
is being proposed by another politician somewhere in Europe or Asia.
And this is because seasoned politicians and activists know very well indeed
from where their power comes. And millions of them now know that every notion -
every rule, regulation, policy or law - that encourages people's relationships
to break down always brings them extra benefits; whereas anything that will
encourage people to stay close to each other is likely to push government - and,
hence, government jobs - out of the window.
A good example of this can be seen in my piece entitled Feminists Destroy the
Planet wherein it is noted that the UK's prime minister, Gordon Brown, has
introduced a whole raft of policies to help reduce carbon emissions in order to
combat global warming - allegedly, "the most important issue of our times" -
but not even once does he address the fact that the increasing tendency for
people to live alone is having a large negative impact on the environment - in
many ways, not just through the resulting higher carbon emissions.
And the reason that Gordon Brown will not do anything to encourage people to
live together - either through his rhetoric or through his policies - is because
he knows full well that the more do people live securely together, the less will
they want government.
And, quite clearly, this want for government is far more important to him than
what he, himself, has alleged to be the "the most important issue of our times".
It surely could not be clearer. Maintaining the increasing tendency for people
to live apart is actually more important to Gordon Brown than reducing carbon
emissions - despite all his rhetoric about the latter being an issue of
planetary-wide importance.
And this must surely give you some idea of just how important to western
governments really is the breaking down of people's relationships.
Indeed, western politicians and millions of government workers would be
horrified if people started getting along too well with each other.
And this is the real reason why western governments love feminism.
It is the perfect hammer for smashing up people's relationships.
In summary:
1. Relationship breakdowns are a goldmine for government and for government
workers. Feminism is, therefore, an ideology that serves the interests of
western governments and their workers very well indeed.
2. Governments are now hugely powerful, with politicians able to give billions
of dollars every year to millions of government workers who will be very keen to
promote their own services - which they will be able to do with much success -
particularly if they adopt the feminists' main aim of breaking apart people's
relationships.
3. It is inconceivable that these government workers will not use their enormous
influence to serve themselves.
4. It is absolutely undeniable that western governments and government workers
have, over the years, poured an enormous amount of their energy, and expended
billions of dollars worth of our resources, on creating and promoting laws,
policies and propaganda that are specifically designed to make close personal
relationships difficult to create and difficult to maintain.
Indeed, the UK's current deputy leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, has
openly stated that marriage is 'irrelevant' to public policy, and she has
actually described high rates of relationship breakdowns as a 'positive
development'. (Like most feminists, she believes that stable inter-gender
relationships oppress women.)
And the only realistic conclusion that one can make is that, when it comes to
people's relationships, western governments and government workers are purposely
seeking to damage these relationships as much as possible.
END NOTES:
1. People often find it difficult to believe that government workers could be so
malicious toward their own people by supporting policies and notions that will
harm them.
And there are two things to be said about this.
Firstly, there is no question in my own mind that many of the people at the top
of government and at the top of government departments are malicious - coldly,
callously malicious. And they often know full well that what they are doing is
harming their own people. But this is of no real significance to them. In other
words, they do not care. Their only concern is to serve themselves in some way.
A good example of this is the way in which so many politicians and government
workers - who should know better - have avoided discussing the issue of
fatherlessness for so long despite the heavy toll that it has clearly been
taking on so many people and on society as a whole.
This heavy toll clearly does not matter to these people.
And why should it? After all, it gives them jobs, money, pensions etc etc etc
Another example would be the way in which educationalists have chosen over the
years to teach children to read using one of the most inefficient methods
imaginable - a method that was known to disadvantage both our boys and our girls
when it came to reading, but which was also known to disadvantage the boys much
more. It is inconceivable to me that educationalists in the higher echelons were
unaware of the degradation in reading skills that was taking place over the
years as a result of using inefficient teaching methods (i.e. the ongoing
degradation was being covered up) and it is also inconceivable to me that they
were unaware that their teaching methods were, in fact, inefficient;
particularly for the boys.
In my view, the method of teaching reading - together with a host of other
educational initiatives that have taken place over the years to the detriment of
boys - was actually designed to undermine the educational progress of the boys
relative to the girls.
And if this is hard to believe, then please bear in mind that these same
educationalists, who were for decades so concerned about the lack of female role
models in the workplace, are now saying that role models for boys in the
educational setting (e.g. having more male teachers in schools) are of no
importance at all.
Furthermore, here in the UK, we have had both left-wing politicians and
left-wing teachers recently saying that nothing should be done to help our boys
catch up with the girls. Even the so-called Equal Opportunities Commission is
saying this; e.g. see this from the Times, Stop Helping Boys, says Equality
Watchdog.
And the question that I keep asking myself is how much more evidence will it
take before people wake up to the fact that western governments - particularly
left-wing governments - are doing all that they can to undermine their own
societies - particularly their own men - and that they are doing this to benefit
themselves.
Now, I could give you many more examples which - to my mind at least - provide
incontrovertible evidence that many of those people who work for government are
malicious and self-serving, but I think I will stop here, and just point out
that the lack of concern of western governments over fatherlessness and over the
poor education of boys cannot be described as anything other than 'malicious'
when it comes to assessing their true attitudes toward 'the people'.
Furthermore, the cost to us all of failing to do anything to solve these two
particular problems amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars every year across
the western world, and it amounts to a huge amount of unhappiness for millions
of people.
Governments, however, benefit hugely from these things. And those at the top
know very well that this is the case.
(For further evidence that government workers are very often deceitful and
malicious, see my piece entitled Do Not Respect Them.)
Secondly, it is also almost certainly true that the vast majority of 'government
workers' will have no idea what harm they might be causing to people by
supporting and promoting 'government' - particularly corrupt government; which
is what we mostly seem to have nowadays Their views tend to be very restricted,
and they tend only to know what they need to know in order to do their own
particular jobs.
However, there will also exist hundreds of thousands of workers in the higher
ranks who will just push a little bit here and a little bit there in order to
gain some advantage for themselves.
For example, senior police officers will wish to impress their political
overlords by gaining as many rape convictions as possible. They will want to
earn more brownie points by proclaiming hither and thither that more must be
done to catch more rapists. And they will forever argue for more and more
resources.
And these police officers are not going to admit openly to the public the fact
that, in practice, the vast majority of rape allegations made to them are
actually false; because to do so would undermine their own positions.
And so across the western world, with thousands of senior police officers
wanting to impress their masters, and with thousands wanting more resources for
their departments, the effect of them pushing a little bit here and a little bit
there (e.g. exaggerating, misrepresenting the facts etc etc) always in the
direction of wanting a little bit more for themselves, amounts to a very large
force indeed.
And this large force can be so detrimental to society as a whole, or to a
particular group within it, that its nature can be very 'malicious' even though
the individuals who are creating this force (in this case, senior police
officers) are not necessarily intending to be malicious. They might simply be
serving themselves by, let us say, putting a certain spin on various issues.
But this is what happens in all government departments.
The people who run them want more money, more power, more influence, more
security, more status, more respect and more prospects. And so, of course, they
will tend to do as much as they can to achieve these things.
And so, quite clearly, the malicious forces that can arise from government can
be fantastically huge in their impact, even though most of the individuals who
created these forces were not intending to be malicious. They were just trying,
let us say, to further their own personal ambitions - which is something that we
all do.
In summary; there will be those at the very top who are well aware of the harm
that they are causing to people by, for example, knowingly encouraging
fatherlessness (i.e. they are malicious) but there will also be hundreds of
thousands of people, slightly lower down the chain, who will be pushing a little
bit here and there in the same direction (encouraging fatherlessness) simply in
order to maintain their empires - the empires that the malicious people above
are promoting and funding.
And the result is a really huge force that is very decidedly malicious.
2. My own view is that if we take a look at the power currently being wielded by
government, by business and by 'the people' at this moment in time, we will see
that 'the people' have a very small voice indeed - with 'men' having almost no
voice at all. And the following graphic probably represents much better than
does the graphic above how the forces from these three groups are currently
matched.
Government now has the biggest voice, and the people have the smallest. (For the
sake of simplicity, I have not mentioned the mainstream media but, by and large,
the output from the mainstream media is still very heavily coloured and
restricted by government and by business.)
Now, given that government mostly serves itself, and given that government has
virtually unassailable resources with which to do so, and given that there is,
quite clearly, so very much that government can gain (and hold on to) by
continually breaking down people's relationships, and given that we now have so
much irrefutable evidence demonstrating quite clearly that western governments
are, indeed, doing their very best on many fronts to break down people's
relationships (a 'positive development', according to Harriet Harman) it seems
to me that people must do their very best to undermine the power of government.
And the simplest way to do this is to support only those politicians who promise
unreservedly to reduce the tax take, and to oppose most vehemently those
politicians who are likely to increase it.
This typically means supporting the right rather than the left, but,
unfortunately, matters are not so simple, because times have really changed. And
there are nowadays very few politicians indeed who have much concern for 'the
people'. Those on the left are, in my view, mostly corrupt through and through -
always seeking to empower themselves and their cronies through the further
expansion and empowerment of government regardless of the cost to the people -
and those on the right are very often pandering to the wishes of big
corporations and powerful businesses. And so there is no longer any strong voice
within government circles that represents real, ordinary people.
And perhaps the most worrying part about all of this is that any politician -
left or right - who dares to stand up for 'the people' in any meaningful way
will be pushed quite quickly into relative obscurity by the other politicians
who will be receiving massive support from very powerful brokers whose only
concern is to promote the interests of big business or big government.
And so, all in all, it seems to me that there is no real representation of 'the
people' within government (and there is certainly no representation of 'men'
within it) and, further, that any representation of 'the people' that occurs
outside of government is nowadays mostly swamped by the huge amount of
self-serving propaganda (particularly from government workers) that pours out in
favour of 'big government'. And, unfortunately for us, this deluge of
self-serving propaganda is coming from people who benefit very handsomely indeed
from breaking apart and undermining people's relationships - and, indeed, by
setting them against each other.
Their overall strategy is, quite clearly, to 'divide and rule' ...
... which is one of the oldest and one of the most effective tricks to be found
in the handbook of those who wish to empower themselves at the expense of
others.
has very little to do with the rights of women.
First and foremost, feminism is about various groups seeking to acquire power
and money, and to build huge self-serving empires in which millions - literally
millions - of people nowadays have a vested interest - a vested interest that
is, in fact, highly detrimental to those societies in which these people
operate.
To see how their game is played, I just want you to imagine a society - a
somewhat idealised society - wherein the women are happy to spend their days
being closely associated with their homes and their children, while the young
men and the fathers are reasonably happy to troop off to the workplace -
wherever this might be.
And, further, I want you to imagine that most of the people in this society are
mostly quite content with their situation.
In other words, it is a reasonably happy place.
And now the question that I want you to contemplate very deeply is this one.
What's in it for government?
How can government - and government workers - benefit from having to exist
within a society of people who seem to be quite happy and at peace with each
other?
On what grounds can the government say to the people, "You need more government.
Give us more tax money."
Well, clearly, in such an idyllic society, it would be very difficult indeed to
persuade the people to part with more of their own resources - acquired through
their own labours - in order to fund 'more government'.
However, if this reasonably happy society can be disrupted by some force or
other - some force that induces 'disharmony' within the population - an increase
in crime, say - then the government will find it much easier to extract a bigger
piece of the society's pie. For example, if there is an increase in crime, the
people will far more readily agree to fund a bigger police force. If the men and
women start fighting against each other, and begin to split apart, with married
couples getting divorced, then the government can justify extracting further
resources from the people in order to create a larger social services workforce
to look after the women and children who are now on their own.
And the point that I am trying to get across here is this.
Governments benefit not by the people being at peace with each other, but by
them being at war with each other in some way.
Of course, governments can benefit from many other things too, but the point
here is this. Governments clearly benefit from what I shall henceforth simply
call 'disharmony' - societal disharmony; such as crime.
And because governments have massive power in comparison to ordinary
individuals, they will tend to use this power to create more and more societal
disharmony - with much success. Of course they will do this. Why? Well, because
governments, and millions of government workers, benefit from disharmony, and
they are not going to use their huge collective force to undermine themselves -
which reducing 'disharmony' would do.
At the very least, government workers do not want to lose their funding, their
jobs, their security, their pensions etc etc etc. And so they need to be
perceived to be needed.
Better still for them, are bigger empires with bigger salaries, and much more
status and power.
After all, in this respect, they are no different from anyone else!
And, collectively, by hook or by crook, these government workers can, and will,
create the most monumental force in order to get these various benefits for
themselves; a force that the people simply cannot counter.
Indeed, it would be bordering on the preposterous to believe that such an
enormous body of government workers would not exert a force in a direction from
which they, themselves, would benefit.
After all, these people are not gods. They are human beings!
In a nutshell: These government workers want bigger empires with bigger salaries
and bigger pensions. They want more status and more power. And, collectively,
they will exert such a huge force that no-one can actually stop them from
getting these things; as the monumental growth in government over the past 120
years or so in the west has clearly shown. (Central governments have grown more
than one hundred-fold over the past 120 years.)
Now, because the main aim of feminists is to create as much disharmony as
possible between men and women in order to fund their own empires, governments
just love them; because, remember; for governments, the more disharmony, the
better.
So let us return to our rather over-simplified society, and see what happens
when married couples with children within this reasonably-happy place start more
often to divorce and to separate.
Well, typically, the men will go off and live on their own somewhere, but they
will continue working. The women, however, will have to choose some combination
of going out to work and staying at home with the children.
If the women decide to stay at home, then they must be given a source of income
by the government. This means that the government must take away money from
others in order to fund them. And, already, this means creating a whole system
of laws involving lawyers, judges, administrators, social assessors, financial
offices and various allied bureaucratic systems.
In other words, divorce and separation provide a whole plethora of benefits for
governments and their workers.
Furthermore, of course, no-one in the population wants to see women and children
left destitute, and so government now gets the benefit of some further popular
support for its endeavours. Thus, the government also wins on this score.
And, of course, the women who are put into this position with their children are
now at the mercy of the government.
In other words, they become dependent on the government; which is also great for
government.
"If you women do not vote for us, then you will get a smaller income from the
government!"
Now, of course, women who have divorced - whether or not they have children -
might instead decide to go out to work; in which case the government wins yet
again - because it now has more workers from whom it can take money through the
tax system.
In other words, encouraging divorce and separation is a winning strategy for
government.
Indeed, it is win-win all the way.
And, most importantly, this remains true whether or not the women have children,
and whether or not they go out to work. It is the growing division between men
and women that is the key to the government's winning strategy.
In summary, therefore, government has an enormous amount to gain by increasing
the divide between men and women, because this enables government workers to
justify the creation and the controlling of many large empires, they can more
easily extract higher taxes, they can tax more people, they can make more people
dependent upon them, and they can gain themselves some extra popular support.
But this is just the beginning.
Many, many further benefits accrue to the government when the close
relationships between men and women are broken apart. For example, the negative
social consequences of not having strong fathers around their children are
positively huge. These tend to impact most directly on boys, but the
repercussions reverberate across the whole of society - for decades. For
example, youngsters - both girls and boys - without fathers in the home are far
more likely to ...
... live in poverty and deprivation, ... be troublesome in school, ... have more
difficulty getting along with others, ... have more health problems, ... suffer
from physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse, ... run away from home, ... get
sexual diseases, ... become teenage parents, ... offend against the law, ...
smoke, drink alcohol and take drugs, ... play truant from school, ... be
excluded from school, ... behave violently, ... give up on education at an early
age, ... make poor adjustments to adulthood, ... attain little in the way of
qualifications, ... experience unemployment, ... have low incomes, ... be on
welfare, ... experience homelessness, ... go to jail, ... suffer from long term
emotional and psychological problems, ... engage only in casual relationships,
... have children outside marriage or, indeed, outside any partnership.
Indeed, a whole cascade of social problems - i.e. a great deal of 'disharmony' -
is generated by the effects of youngsters not having fathers around.
But, clearly, governments benefit fantastically from this; because governments
can use these enormous problems to justify even further increases in both taxes
and power.
After all, the people want to be protected from all the negative social
consequences of fatherlessness - and, of course, the victims themselves could
clearly do with a bit of extra help.
And so governments can justify (and, hence, finagle and extract) much more money
from the people in order to acquire more police officers, more prison officers,
more probation officers, more welfare officers, more lawyers, judges and other
courtroom staff, more psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, doctors, nurses,
social workers, remedial educationalists and, indeed, even more street cleaners!
- and, of course, many, many more bureaucrats to monitor and to exert control in
all of these areas.
And the increases in taxes and power that governments can suck up to themselves
as a result these negative social consequences really are huge.
And, if you can believe it, I have not yet even mentioned all those lawyers,
judges and bureaucrats who are part of the divorce system itself; together with
all those professionals who have to get involved in matters to do with alimony,
child custody and child support. Indeed, even if we forget about all the
numerous social and personal problems mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the
divorce industry itself is, nowadays, a multi-billion dollar industry.
Furthermore, of course, as far as life in the later years is concerned, breaking
down the relationships between men and women ensures that old people and sick
people are less likely to receive help from those who are close to them,
because, quite simply, fewer people end up being close to them. And this often
means that these vulnerable people are either abandoned to waste away on their
own, or they are put into care homes and hospitals - often run by government -
where the staff tend to treat them with, at best, clinical disinterest. (Indeed,
a recent report in the UK stated that the most common problems for old people
stem from loneliness and from living alone.)
Thus, one can summarise the situation as follows. Breaking apart the
relationships between men and women creates an absolute gold mine for
government. From childhood to old age, relationship breakdowns cause numerous
problems for the whole of society, but they give rise to numerous benefits for
government.
Now, all this is not to say that everything that the government does is bad -
particularly at the micro level.
Not at all.
For example, it is clearly the case that some men and women do need to be kept
away from each other. We do need our governments to help women and children who
are on their own. We do need care homes and hospitals for old and sick people.
We do need police officers and prisons. And so on.
But none of this alters the fact that the more do the relationships between men
and women break down, the more does the government benefit. And it benefits
hugely - as per above.
And you really would have to stretch your credulity to ridiculous levels to
believe that the millions of workers who are employed by government are
beavering away to destroy the huge 'social/personal/legal/financial industries'
from which they, themselves, have so much to gain.
Furthermore, we have clearly seen western governments - particularly left-wing
governments - using their enormous power over the years to encourage people's
relationships to break down.
Indeed, these governments have left almost no stone unturned in their quest to
damage people's relationships.
They have spent billions of dollars flooding the population with false
statistics concerning 'relationship abuse' of various kinds, with the legal
language being purposely distorted to make out that women are perpetually being
violated by men in some way. For example, they have fudged the definitions of
various types of 'abuse' to such a ludicrous extent that, for example,
criticising a woman's mother can nowadays be seen as an act of violence -
'domestic violence' - calling someone 'dear' as an act of sexual harassment, and
engaging in consensual sex which is later regretted as an act of rape. (The idea
behind all these things is to stir up both hatred towards men and a fear of men,
and it is also designed to encourage as many women as possible to make false
allegations of 'abuse'.) They have spent billions of dollars funding numerous
victim groups that seem to spend more time dispensing anti-male propaganda than
helping any alleged victims. They have
engaged in and/or funded numerous media campaigns designed to portray all men
as being likely to be abusive towards women and children in some way. And
governments continue to offer to women numerous incentives - financial and
otherwise - to make false allegations.
They have spent even more billions on 'welfare' to make men as redundant as
possible when it comes to women and the family. They have purposely debased and
feminised the educational system so that our young men achieve much less
educationally than do our young women - something that stymies future
relationships on a massive scale given that women tend to prefer partners who
are more educated than them. They have been discriminating against men in the
workplace at all levels (to reduce the value of men) under the spurious grounds
that women themselves were being discriminated against by men. They have reduced
the pay of men in numerous jobs controlled by government simply on the grounds
that men tend to be drawn to those jobs more so than are women, and they have
done the reverse for those jobs to which women tend more to be drawn. (The
ridiculous argument currently being tested out on the population is that,
"productivity, hard work and profit are
'old-fashioned' ways of assessing what someone should be paid.") They have
corrupted the law to such an extent that all men are now at the mercy of their
partners when it comes to false allegations of 'abuse', child custody issues and
ridiculously high alimony payouts - the idea being to tempt women into breaking
their relationships because they have little to lose and often very much to gain
by doing so - and, of course, to make men fearful of even embarking on any
long-term relationships. They have corrupted the justice system to such an
extent when it comes to the relationships between men and children that it is
now extremely unwise for men to have anything to do with children.
And, in our schools, children even as young as eight are being indoctrinated
with the feminist-inspired nonsense that men have oppressed women for thousands
of years.
Indeed, it is also now being argued - with much success - that intimates should
treat each other as if they were complete strangers. For example, Stranger Rape
is now said to be just as bad as Relationship Rape. Photographing your own child
being breastfed is said to be producing child pornography. On and on it goes.
And it seems quite clear to me that the ultimate aim is to force people to treat
each other as if they were complete strangers by putting them at some kind of
significant legal risk if they do not do so. Even a music teacher who places a
child's hands correctly on the instrument now risks job suspension and abuse
allegations.
The whole idea is to cut out, or to tarnish with suspicion, any closeness - no
matter how slight - that might exist between people.
Indeed, I cannot think of any law enacted over the past three decades that
impacts upon people's close relationships - either directly or indirectly - that
has not been designed to encourage those relationships to break down.
And, essentially, governments have been breaking down the relationships between
people so that they can elbow their way deeper and deeper into the connections -
social, personal and financial - that once bonded people together.
Furthermore, if one stands back to look at the overall picture that has been
emerging over the past few decades, two things become very clear.
Firstly, the motives of government workers in this area have precious little to
do with increasing the welfare of the people. On the contrary, these motives are
often malicious, and they are mostly to do with government workers seeking to
serve themselves in some way by causing 'disharmony'; with the phrase "divide
and rule" encapsulating much of what has been going on. (Indeed, one only has to
look at how western governments have been at the forefront of encouraging
fatherlessness - and, hence, the numerous consequent social problems mentioned
above - over the past four decades to see just how malicious they have been.)
Secondly, western governments are now so large (employing directly or indirectly
some 20% of the entire population) that government workers, themselves, now
represent the most enormous political force for 'big government'; which,
essentially, means left-wing government. As such, we really no longer live in
'democracies'.
For example, when left-wing US politicians like Joe Biden pump billions of
dollars into groups associated with VAWA, he is not just handing enormous
amounts of our money over to services that provide aid to victims of domestic
violence. He is, in fact, handing out this money to numerous groups of
government workers across America who rely on this money for their jobs and
their pensions, and who will, unsurprisingly, give their political support to
Joe Biden.
And, of course, there are millions of other government workers (school teachers,
social workers, academics etc etc) who are also going to support left-wing
government for precisely the same self-serving reasons.
(As just one example of this,many academics who rely on government funding are
going to drum up evidence to support the government's point of view, or their
funding is going to disappear.)
And, just as importantly, these millions of workers will also provide and
promote political propaganda that is designed to serve themselves; with these
government workers now so entrenched in almost every area of life that their
propaganda nowadays pours into the minds of the population from almost every
information source imaginable - even at school.
(Furthermore, of course, many billions of these dollars go directly into
providing social welfare of some kind; thus ensuring that the millions of people
who benefit from this will vote for left-wing government.)
The upshot is that the population is mostly nowadays very heavily infected with
the view that policies that promote bigger and more powerful government are the
best policies for the people; and so, of course, the people tend to vote for
them.
But the people are being hoodwinked, because they are not being told the truth.
They are being deluged with self-serving propaganda from many self-serving
sources, and the evidence that these sources are deceiving them on numerous
fronts, and in very many ways, is just irrefutable.
Indeed, I am writing this during a time in which the entire world is facing an
enormous economic crisis, and the world's leaders have just decided to bail out
various banking and financial systems with two trillion dollars of taxpayer's
money. Now, apart from the huge burden that this will place on the taxpayers,
and on future taxpayers, the economic downturn is going to result in the loss of
thousands of jobs, the pensions of those who work in the private sector are
going to be slashed - for many years to come - and many businesses are going to
flounder and fail.
But if you look at what most of the politicians on both sides of the political
spectrum are doing in order to help alleviate this situation, there is one
feature that stands out rather starkly. And it can be encapsulated in a phrase
that has been used recently by politicians time and time again across the
western world: "We must not cut public services in these most difficult times."
Well, this is just another way of saying that, no matter how bad are the
economic circumstances for everyone else, government services (i.e. government,
and government workers) must not be allowed to be affected by them. In other
words, government and government workers must be insulated from all the economic
problems. It is those who work outside of government who must bear most of the
costs.
In other words, government workers now clearly form a new protected and
privileged aristocracy - an aristocracy that is to be protected even from the
most devastating of economic circumstances.
No matter how big the crisis - and the current one is huge - their jobs and
their salaries must not be cut, and their pensions must be guaranteed through
thick and thin - regardless of the cost to everyone else, and regardless of how
much everyone else is struggling to make ends meet for themselves, for their
families, and for their futures.
But who can oppose this enormous beast of government? - this self-serving
organism?
After all, the government has hundreds of billions of dollars at its disposal -
every year - vast bureaucratic empires that invade every corner of our lives,
and millions of organised people working for it. Furthermore, it is the
government that makes the laws.
So, who can compete with it?
And who can compete with the vast resources of government when it comes to
'debating the issues' and putting across a particular point of view?
Well, there is no other organism that comes even close to being able to compete
with this governmental beast.
A hundred years ago, western governments were very small indeed when compared to
today. And, loosely speaking, the right represented the wealthy and the
ever-growing number of powerful industrialists and businessmen, and the left
represented the ordinary working people and the impoverished.
Those on the right reckoned that the people would be better served by allowing
them to get on with the job of creating wealth and power, while those on the
left reckoned that government should intervene more directly, and more often, to
help those who were the most in need.
Translated into today's world, this could be loosely described as the big,
powerful businesses being represented by those on the right, and the ordinary
people themselves being represented by those on the left.
But times have changed quite dramatically since those far-off days; and there is
now a new kid on the block.
Government itself.
And this new kid is now far more powerful than 'the businesses' or 'the people'
- by a very long way.
Indeed, not only does this new kid have the muscle power, the organisational
power, the financial power and the legal power to get what he wants, he also has
the propaganda power to persuade the people of his point of view.
And it is absolutely clear that this new kid has been using this enormous power
to serve himself.
Just take a look at how western governments have grown over the past 100 years -
or even over the past 10 years. Look at the ever-increasing tax take. Look at
the ever-increasing numbers of people employed by government. Look at the
thousands upon thousands of laws, regulations, restrictions and directives that
are annually being imposed by western governments on their own peoples.
These governments just grow and grow and grow - not only in terms of size, but
also in terms of power and wealth. And they are infiltrating themselves into
every aspect of people's lives; controlling, monitoring, regulating, directing,
stipulating, coercing - always to an ever-greater extent.
But who can stop them?
For example, who can compete with the billions of dollars that the left-wing Joe
Bidens of this world pour into left-wing causes, left-wing jobs, left-wing
benefits and, hence, into left-wing propaganda and left-wing votes for even
bigger government?
Who has the money to compete with this?
No-one, and no organisation, has a hope of competing with such a force.
Indeed, and for example, despite the fact that Americans are renowned the world
over for their almost manic belief in small government and individual liberty,
this has not stopped their federal government from growing and growing and,
indeed, from walking all over them.
And the reason for this is because western governments have grown far too
powerful.
But who can be surprised by this given that millions of government workers with
huge resources and millions of benefit recipients will tend to promote their own
interests rather than those of 'business' or 'the people'?
A hundred years ago it was all different.
The government tax take was miniscule, the rules and regulations were few, and
the numbers of government workers and benefit recipients were both small, and
so, for example, when the government handed out money to its own workers in
order to pursue some agenda or other, the efforts of these workers, their
ability to influence people, and the number of votes that the government
workers, themselves, were able to cast in elections were all relatively small in
comparison to what 'the people' could do in such areas.
But now, these government workers have around 20% of the vote, and they also
have resources that are absolutely unassailable.
Indeed, in order to drum this point home, just imagine if you had one billion
dollars annually to distribute to whomsoever you wished. And, further, imagine
that, every year, you distributed this one billion dollars to people whose work
supported some activist group. You can surely imagine just how large would be
the impact that this activist group would then be able to make, right across the
country.
Just one billion dollars will do!
But the Joe Bidens of this world nowadays distribute hundreds of billions of
dollars every year to government workers and to benefit recipients who are bound
to support 'the government' in order to benefit themselves.
(And, of course, there is no other group that can possibly compete with a
left-wing government's power to, quite frankly, 'bribe' a few million voters
with benefits.)
And the upshot has been that western governments have been able, very
successfully, to bamboozle the public into believing in - and 'voting' for -
those ideas and notions that, in fact, are mostly of benefit to government,
rather than of benefit to the people; the purposeful breaking down of
relationships being just one example of this.
Indeed, when it comes to men's issues, we have seen western governments of all
persuasions lying, fudging, deceiving, ignoring, blocking and cheating in so
many areas - always in a direction of causing more problems for men, women and
children when it comes to their relationships - that it is simply impossible to
escape the conclusion that damaging people's relationships is a major aim of
western governments.
And the reason for this is very clear.
As I mentioned earlier in connection with our fictional idyllic society,
damaging the relationships between people creates an absolute goldmine for
western governments. It is a perpetual lottery jackpot win.
And, of course, there are many other ways through which governments can
encourage relationships to break down - ways that go beyond those to do with
close personal relationships. For example, encouraging excessive immigration
causes relationships within communities to become far more tenuous and
uncertain. And, of course, the government will benefit from this as a result of
the increasing disharmony and uncertainty that this brings about. Furthermore,
the government will benefit whether the immigrants are productive or disruptive.
If they are productive, the government gets more tax dollars. If they are
disruptive, then the government can justify more taxes and more power to deal
with the ensuing problems.
Thus, excessive immigration is also win-win all the way for government.
And then there are the various laws to do with hate speech and with 'offending'
people. These tend to distance people from each other because these laws
encourage certain types of people to use the law in even the most trivial of
circumstances.
The whole idea is, clearly, to break apart as much as possible any strong sense
of cohesion and/or security that people might have with each other.
Indeed, the ways in which this perpetual lottery jackpot win can be collected is
becoming increasingly recognised and appreciated by governments all over the
world - which is why feminism, and feminist policies, are now being taken up so
avidly by them - and so quickly.
Time and time again, you can hear one politician promoting some new
feminist-inspired notion in the USA on Monday, and by Wednesday the same notion
is being proposed by another politician somewhere in Europe or Asia.
And this is because seasoned politicians and activists know very well indeed
from where their power comes. And millions of them now know that every notion -
every rule, regulation, policy or law - that encourages people's relationships
to break down always brings them extra benefits; whereas anything that will
encourage people to stay close to each other is likely to push government - and,
hence, government jobs - out of the window.
A good example of this can be seen in my piece entitled Feminists Destroy the
Planet wherein it is noted that the UK's prime minister, Gordon Brown, has
introduced a whole raft of policies to help reduce carbon emissions in order to
combat global warming - allegedly, "the most important issue of our times" -
but not even once does he address the fact that the increasing tendency for
people to live alone is having a large negative impact on the environment - in
many ways, not just through the resulting higher carbon emissions.
And the reason that Gordon Brown will not do anything to encourage people to
live together - either through his rhetoric or through his policies - is because
he knows full well that the more do people live securely together, the less will
they want government.
And, quite clearly, this want for government is far more important to him than
what he, himself, has alleged to be the "the most important issue of our times".
It surely could not be clearer. Maintaining the increasing tendency for people
to live apart is actually more important to Gordon Brown than reducing carbon
emissions - despite all his rhetoric about the latter being an issue of
planetary-wide importance.
And this must surely give you some idea of just how important to western
governments really is the breaking down of people's relationships.
Indeed, western politicians and millions of government workers would be
horrified if people started getting along too well with each other.
And this is the real reason why western governments love feminism.
It is the perfect hammer for smashing up people's relationships.
In summary:
1. Relationship breakdowns are a goldmine for government and for government
workers. Feminism is, therefore, an ideology that serves the interests of
western governments and their workers very well indeed.
2. Governments are now hugely powerful, with politicians able to give billions
of dollars every year to millions of government workers who will be very keen to
promote their own services - which they will be able to do with much success -
particularly if they adopt the feminists' main aim of breaking apart people's
relationships.
3. It is inconceivable that these government workers will not use their enormous
influence to serve themselves.
4. It is absolutely undeniable that western governments and government workers
have, over the years, poured an enormous amount of their energy, and expended
billions of dollars worth of our resources, on creating and promoting laws,
policies and propaganda that are specifically designed to make close personal
relationships difficult to create and difficult to maintain.
Indeed, the UK's current deputy leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, has
openly stated that marriage is 'irrelevant' to public policy, and she has
actually described high rates of relationship breakdowns as a 'positive
development'. (Like most feminists, she believes that stable inter-gender
relationships oppress women.)
And the only realistic conclusion that one can make is that, when it comes to
people's relationships, western governments and government workers are purposely
seeking to damage these relationships as much as possible.
END NOTES:
1. People often find it difficult to believe that government workers could be so
malicious toward their own people by supporting policies and notions that will
harm them.
And there are two things to be said about this.
Firstly, there is no question in my own mind that many of the people at the top
of government and at the top of government departments are malicious - coldly,
callously malicious. And they often know full well that what they are doing is
harming their own people. But this is of no real significance to them. In other
words, they do not care. Their only concern is to serve themselves in some way.
A good example of this is the way in which so many politicians and government
workers - who should know better - have avoided discussing the issue of
fatherlessness for so long despite the heavy toll that it has clearly been
taking on so many people and on society as a whole.
This heavy toll clearly does not matter to these people.
And why should it? After all, it gives them jobs, money, pensions etc etc etc
Another example would be the way in which educationalists have chosen over the
years to teach children to read using one of the most inefficient methods
imaginable - a method that was known to disadvantage both our boys and our girls
when it came to reading, but which was also known to disadvantage the boys much
more. It is inconceivable to me that educationalists in the higher echelons were
unaware of the degradation in reading skills that was taking place over the
years as a result of using inefficient teaching methods (i.e. the ongoing
degradation was being covered up) and it is also inconceivable to me that they
were unaware that their teaching methods were, in fact, inefficient;
particularly for the boys.
In my view, the method of teaching reading - together with a host of other
educational initiatives that have taken place over the years to the detriment of
boys - was actually designed to undermine the educational progress of the boys
relative to the girls.
And if this is hard to believe, then please bear in mind that these same
educationalists, who were for decades so concerned about the lack of female role
models in the workplace, are now saying that role models for boys in the
educational setting (e.g. having more male teachers in schools) are of no
importance at all.
Furthermore, here in the UK, we have had both left-wing politicians and
left-wing teachers recently saying that nothing should be done to help our boys
catch up with the girls. Even the so-called Equal Opportunities Commission is
saying this; e.g. see this from the Times, Stop Helping Boys, says Equality
Watchdog.
And the question that I keep asking myself is how much more evidence will it
take before people wake up to the fact that western governments - particularly
left-wing governments - are doing all that they can to undermine their own
societies - particularly their own men - and that they are doing this to benefit
themselves.
Now, I could give you many more examples which - to my mind at least - provide
incontrovertible evidence that many of those people who work for government are
malicious and self-serving, but I think I will stop here, and just point out
that the lack of concern of western governments over fatherlessness and over the
poor education of boys cannot be described as anything other than 'malicious'
when it comes to assessing their true attitudes toward 'the people'.
Furthermore, the cost to us all of failing to do anything to solve these two
particular problems amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars every year across
the western world, and it amounts to a huge amount of unhappiness for millions
of people.
Governments, however, benefit hugely from these things. And those at the top
know very well that this is the case.
(For further evidence that government workers are very often deceitful and
malicious, see my piece entitled Do Not Respect Them.)
Secondly, it is also almost certainly true that the vast majority of 'government
workers' will have no idea what harm they might be causing to people by
supporting and promoting 'government' - particularly corrupt government; which
is what we mostly seem to have nowadays Their views tend to be very restricted,
and they tend only to know what they need to know in order to do their own
particular jobs.
However, there will also exist hundreds of thousands of workers in the higher
ranks who will just push a little bit here and a little bit there in order to
gain some advantage for themselves.
For example, senior police officers will wish to impress their political
overlords by gaining as many rape convictions as possible. They will want to
earn more brownie points by proclaiming hither and thither that more must be
done to catch more rapists. And they will forever argue for more and more
resources.
And these police officers are not going to admit openly to the public the fact
that, in practice, the vast majority of rape allegations made to them are
actually false; because to do so would undermine their own positions.
And so across the western world, with thousands of senior police officers
wanting to impress their masters, and with thousands wanting more resources for
their departments, the effect of them pushing a little bit here and a little bit
there (e.g. exaggerating, misrepresenting the facts etc etc) always in the
direction of wanting a little bit more for themselves, amounts to a very large
force indeed.
And this large force can be so detrimental to society as a whole, or to a
particular group within it, that its nature can be very 'malicious' even though
the individuals who are creating this force (in this case, senior police
officers) are not necessarily intending to be malicious. They might simply be
serving themselves by, let us say, putting a certain spin on various issues.
But this is what happens in all government departments.
The people who run them want more money, more power, more influence, more
security, more status, more respect and more prospects. And so, of course, they
will tend to do as much as they can to achieve these things.
And so, quite clearly, the malicious forces that can arise from government can
be fantastically huge in their impact, even though most of the individuals who
created these forces were not intending to be malicious. They were just trying,
let us say, to further their own personal ambitions - which is something that we
all do.
In summary; there will be those at the very top who are well aware of the harm
that they are causing to people by, for example, knowingly encouraging
fatherlessness (i.e. they are malicious) but there will also be hundreds of
thousands of people, slightly lower down the chain, who will be pushing a little
bit here and there in the same direction (encouraging fatherlessness) simply in
order to maintain their empires - the empires that the malicious people above
are promoting and funding.
And the result is a really huge force that is very decidedly malicious.
2. My own view is that if we take a look at the power currently being wielded by
government, by business and by 'the people' at this moment in time, we will see
that 'the people' have a very small voice indeed - with 'men' having almost no
voice at all. And the following graphic probably represents much better than
does the graphic above how the forces from these three groups are currently
matched.
Government now has the biggest voice, and the people have the smallest. (For the
sake of simplicity, I have not mentioned the mainstream media but, by and large,
the output from the mainstream media is still very heavily coloured and
restricted by government and by business.)
Now, given that government mostly serves itself, and given that government has
virtually unassailable resources with which to do so, and given that there is,
quite clearly, so very much that government can gain (and hold on to) by
continually breaking down people's relationships, and given that we now have so
much irrefutable evidence demonstrating quite clearly that western governments
are, indeed, doing their very best on many fronts to break down people's
relationships (a 'positive development', according to Harriet Harman) it seems
to me that people must do their very best to undermine the power of government.
And the simplest way to do this is to support only those politicians who promise
unreservedly to reduce the tax take, and to oppose most vehemently those
politicians who are likely to increase it.
This typically means supporting the right rather than the left, but,
unfortunately, matters are not so simple, because times have really changed. And
there are nowadays very few politicians indeed who have much concern for 'the
people'. Those on the left are, in my view, mostly corrupt through and through -
always seeking to empower themselves and their cronies through the further
expansion and empowerment of government regardless of the cost to the people -
and those on the right are very often pandering to the wishes of big
corporations and powerful businesses. And so there is no longer any strong voice
within government circles that represents real, ordinary people.
And perhaps the most worrying part about all of this is that any politician -
left or right - who dares to stand up for 'the people' in any meaningful way
will be pushed quite quickly into relative obscurity by the other politicians
who will be receiving massive support from very powerful brokers whose only
concern is to promote the interests of big business or big government.
And so, all in all, it seems to me that there is no real representation of 'the
people' within government (and there is certainly no representation of 'men'
within it) and, further, that any representation of 'the people' that occurs
outside of government is nowadays mostly swamped by the huge amount of
self-serving propaganda (particularly from government workers) that pours out in
favour of 'big government'. And, unfortunately for us, this deluge of
self-serving propaganda is coming from people who benefit very handsomely indeed
from breaking apart and undermining people's relationships - and, indeed, by
setting them against each other.
Their overall strategy is, quite clearly, to 'divide and rule' ...
... which is one of the oldest and one of the most effective tricks to be found
in the handbook of those who wish to empower themselves at the expense of
others.
Monday, February 22, 2010
SIFF CHANDIGARH CAR RALLY AGAINST MISUSE OF DOWRY LAWS
Links to the newspaper articles covering the event of Car Rally organised by SIF Chandigarh against misuse of Dowry Laws.
http://community.webshots.com/album/576821950KtKbUF
http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=22_02_2010_163_011&mode=1
http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/view/23571/143/
http://baretnews.com/story/20100222062602001b.html
http://newsblaze.com/story/20100222062338mand.nb/topstory.html
http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/view/23592/143/
http://merachandigarh.in/chandigarh-news/save_indian_family_foundation.html
http://epaper.indianexpress.com/IE/IEH/2010/02/22/ArticleHtmls/22_02_2010_542_016.shtml?Mode=1
http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=21_02_2010_164_002&mode=1
http://oindianews.posterous.com/harassed-men-rally-under-banner-of-save-india
http://community.webshots.com/album/576821950KtKbUF
http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=22_02_2010_163_011&mode=1
http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/view/23571/143/
http://baretnews.com/story/20100222062602001b.html
http://newsblaze.com/story/20100222062338mand.nb/topstory.html
http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/view/23592/143/
http://merachandigarh.in/chandigarh-news/save_indian_family_foundation.html
http://epaper.indianexpress.com/IE/IEH/2010/02/22/ArticleHtmls/22_02_2010_542_016.shtml?Mode=1
http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=21_02_2010_164_002&mode=1
http://oindianews.posterous.com/harassed-men-rally-under-banner-of-save-india
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
बेवफा कौन? देसी पति या विलायती मेम
http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/delhiarticleshow/5582202.cms
बेवफा कौन? देसी पति या विलायती मेम
फरीदाबाद ।। लंदन में रहने वाली एनआरआई महिला वैजयंती माला ने अपने पति पर बेवफा होने का आरोप लगाया है। इसके जव
पत्नी के आरोपों का जवाब देने के लिए अनिल कोर्ट में आए। NBT
ाब में मंगलवार को उनके पति अनिल यहां के सेक्टर-12 स्थित कोर्ट परिसर में सबके सामने आए। उन्होंने पिछले साल स्थानीय कोर्ट से अपनी पत्नी से तलाक के सारे सबूत पेश किए। अनिल का कहना है कि वह बुधवार को दिल्ली की पूनम से ग्रेटर कैलाश में शादी कर रहे हैं। अनिल ने अपनी पूर्व पत्नी पर गैर पुरुषों से अवैध संबंध रखने, धोखे से उनके नाम पर लाखों का लोन लेने और धमकाने जैसे संगीन आरोप लगाए हैं। इस बारे में उन्होंने यहां की पुलिस में शिकायत भी दी है।
फरीदाबाद के बुआपुर गांव निवासी अनिल का कहना है कि वह पांच साल पहले दिल्ली में टैक्सी चलाने वाले एक दोस्त के जरिये लंदन निवासी वैजयंती माला के संपर्क में आया था। दसवीं तक पढ़े-लिखे अनिल की धीरे-धीरे उससे दोस्ती हो गई। दोस्ती प्यार में बदली और दोनों ने दिल्ली के आर्य समाज मंदिर में शादी कर ली। शादी से पहले वैजयंती ने उसे लंदन चलने के लिए राजी कर लिया था और हर सुख देने का भरोसा दिया था। लेकिन अनिल इससे अनजान था कि वैजयंती तलाकशुदा है। अनिल का कहना है कि हसबैंड वीजा पर वह लंदन चला गया। वहां एक साल तक उनके संबंध मधुर रहे, लेकिन धीरे-धीरे उनके रिश्ते में कड़वाहट आने लगी।
अनिल को पता चला कि वैजयंती की 24 साल की बेटी भी है। इसके बाद वह भारत लौटने की जिद करने लगा। आरोप है कि इस बात पर वैजयंती ने उसके साथ अमानवीय व्यवहार करना शुरू कर दिया। इसमें अनिल की सैलरी अपने पास रखने, लंदन के एक बैंक से उसके नाम पर लाखों पाउंड लोन लेने और मारपीट जैसी बातें शामिल हैं। अनिल का आरोप है कि वैजयंती ने उसके सामने कई पुरुषों के साथ शारीरिक संबंध बनाए। वह उसे एक कमरे में बंद कर देती थी। कुछ लोग हर वक्त साये की तरह उसके साथ लगे रहते थे।
लंदन में रहते हुए अनिल के भाई को हार्ट अटैक हुआ, जिसके चलते वह किसी तरह यहां आ सका। यहां आने के बाद वैजयंती के साथ लंदन लौटने को लेकर झगड़ा शुरू हो गया। अनिल ने यहां के स्थानीय कोर्ट में तलाक की अर्जी दी। 3 मार्च 2009 को तलाक हो गया।
अनिल का कहना है कि उसके पास कोर्ट के सारे पेपर मौजूद हैं। जहां तक वैजयंती का उस पर लगाए आरोपों का सवाल है कि उसने फर्जी हस्ताक्षर कर हासिल किए है, तो इसकी सचाई कोर्ट की तरफ से मिले तलाक के पेपर से हो जाएगी। इस मामले में 9 मार्च को सुनवाई होनी है। अनिल का कहना है कि कोर्ट ने किसी तरह का स्टे नहीं दिया है। उसके घरवालों की मौजूदगी में बुधवार को शादी हो रही है। अनिल ने कहा कि वैजयंती ने उसकी शादी रुकवाने के लिए उसकी होने वाली पत्नी को कई तरीके से बदनाम करने की कोशिश तक की है। वैजयंती के ऐसे ही व्यवहार के चलते उसकी बेटी भी उसका साथ नहीं रहती है।
अनिल ने मुझे धोखा दिया : वैजयंती
वैजयंती ने फोन पर एनबीटी संवाददाता को बताया कि अनिल लंदन के बैंक से हजारों पाउंड का गबन करके भागा है। उसने अनिल को वहां के कॉलेज में पढ़ने के लिए भेजा लेकिन वह वहां भी नहीं पढ़ा। वैजयंती का कहना है कि तलाक के पेपर ही उसने अब तक नहीं देखा है। इस धोखाधड़ी में अनिल के दोस्त धर्मवीर और रमेश शामिल हैं। रमेश ने उसका कन्यादान किया था। धर्मवीर ने उसे अनिल से मिलवाया था। पूनम से अनिल के रिश्ते पहले से थे। वह बार-बार लंदन से फोन करता था। मेरे पूछने पर कहता था कि वह अपने दोस्तों से बात कर रहा है। उन लोगों ने उल्टे मेरे से करीब 18000 पाउंड दहेज लिया। उसके पास क्रेडिट कार्ड की सारी कॉपी है। मेरे पैसे से अनिल ने फरीदाबाद व दिल्ली में कई जगहों पर प्रॉपर्टी खरीदी है। अनिल यहां आकर लंदन नहीं लौटा, इस चलते उसे बार-बार आना पड़ता था। उसने मुझे धोखा दिया। यह सब उसने रुपयों के लिए किया।
बेवफा कौन? देसी पति या विलायती मेम
फरीदाबाद ।। लंदन में रहने वाली एनआरआई महिला वैजयंती माला ने अपने पति पर बेवफा होने का आरोप लगाया है। इसके जव
पत्नी के आरोपों का जवाब देने के लिए अनिल कोर्ट में आए। NBT
ाब में मंगलवार को उनके पति अनिल यहां के सेक्टर-12 स्थित कोर्ट परिसर में सबके सामने आए। उन्होंने पिछले साल स्थानीय कोर्ट से अपनी पत्नी से तलाक के सारे सबूत पेश किए। अनिल का कहना है कि वह बुधवार को दिल्ली की पूनम से ग्रेटर कैलाश में शादी कर रहे हैं। अनिल ने अपनी पूर्व पत्नी पर गैर पुरुषों से अवैध संबंध रखने, धोखे से उनके नाम पर लाखों का लोन लेने और धमकाने जैसे संगीन आरोप लगाए हैं। इस बारे में उन्होंने यहां की पुलिस में शिकायत भी दी है।
फरीदाबाद के बुआपुर गांव निवासी अनिल का कहना है कि वह पांच साल पहले दिल्ली में टैक्सी चलाने वाले एक दोस्त के जरिये लंदन निवासी वैजयंती माला के संपर्क में आया था। दसवीं तक पढ़े-लिखे अनिल की धीरे-धीरे उससे दोस्ती हो गई। दोस्ती प्यार में बदली और दोनों ने दिल्ली के आर्य समाज मंदिर में शादी कर ली। शादी से पहले वैजयंती ने उसे लंदन चलने के लिए राजी कर लिया था और हर सुख देने का भरोसा दिया था। लेकिन अनिल इससे अनजान था कि वैजयंती तलाकशुदा है। अनिल का कहना है कि हसबैंड वीजा पर वह लंदन चला गया। वहां एक साल तक उनके संबंध मधुर रहे, लेकिन धीरे-धीरे उनके रिश्ते में कड़वाहट आने लगी।
अनिल को पता चला कि वैजयंती की 24 साल की बेटी भी है। इसके बाद वह भारत लौटने की जिद करने लगा। आरोप है कि इस बात पर वैजयंती ने उसके साथ अमानवीय व्यवहार करना शुरू कर दिया। इसमें अनिल की सैलरी अपने पास रखने, लंदन के एक बैंक से उसके नाम पर लाखों पाउंड लोन लेने और मारपीट जैसी बातें शामिल हैं। अनिल का आरोप है कि वैजयंती ने उसके सामने कई पुरुषों के साथ शारीरिक संबंध बनाए। वह उसे एक कमरे में बंद कर देती थी। कुछ लोग हर वक्त साये की तरह उसके साथ लगे रहते थे।
लंदन में रहते हुए अनिल के भाई को हार्ट अटैक हुआ, जिसके चलते वह किसी तरह यहां आ सका। यहां आने के बाद वैजयंती के साथ लंदन लौटने को लेकर झगड़ा शुरू हो गया। अनिल ने यहां के स्थानीय कोर्ट में तलाक की अर्जी दी। 3 मार्च 2009 को तलाक हो गया।
अनिल का कहना है कि उसके पास कोर्ट के सारे पेपर मौजूद हैं। जहां तक वैजयंती का उस पर लगाए आरोपों का सवाल है कि उसने फर्जी हस्ताक्षर कर हासिल किए है, तो इसकी सचाई कोर्ट की तरफ से मिले तलाक के पेपर से हो जाएगी। इस मामले में 9 मार्च को सुनवाई होनी है। अनिल का कहना है कि कोर्ट ने किसी तरह का स्टे नहीं दिया है। उसके घरवालों की मौजूदगी में बुधवार को शादी हो रही है। अनिल ने कहा कि वैजयंती ने उसकी शादी रुकवाने के लिए उसकी होने वाली पत्नी को कई तरीके से बदनाम करने की कोशिश तक की है। वैजयंती के ऐसे ही व्यवहार के चलते उसकी बेटी भी उसका साथ नहीं रहती है।
अनिल ने मुझे धोखा दिया : वैजयंती
वैजयंती ने फोन पर एनबीटी संवाददाता को बताया कि अनिल लंदन के बैंक से हजारों पाउंड का गबन करके भागा है। उसने अनिल को वहां के कॉलेज में पढ़ने के लिए भेजा लेकिन वह वहां भी नहीं पढ़ा। वैजयंती का कहना है कि तलाक के पेपर ही उसने अब तक नहीं देखा है। इस धोखाधड़ी में अनिल के दोस्त धर्मवीर और रमेश शामिल हैं। रमेश ने उसका कन्यादान किया था। धर्मवीर ने उसे अनिल से मिलवाया था। पूनम से अनिल के रिश्ते पहले से थे। वह बार-बार लंदन से फोन करता था। मेरे पूछने पर कहता था कि वह अपने दोस्तों से बात कर रहा है। उन लोगों ने उल्टे मेरे से करीब 18000 पाउंड दहेज लिया। उसके पास क्रेडिट कार्ड की सारी कॉपी है। मेरे पैसे से अनिल ने फरीदाबाद व दिल्ली में कई जगहों पर प्रॉपर्टी खरीदी है। अनिल यहां आकर लंदन नहीं लौटा, इस चलते उसे बार-बार आना पड़ता था। उसने मुझे धोखा दिया। यह सब उसने रुपयों के लिए किया।
SHOCKING STATISTICS OF INDIAN MARRIAGE SUCCESS
Shocking stats
As per current survey ...by CNN/IBN team
In India Marraige Success rates : 48%(2009)
78%(2008)
Primary Reasons(Percentage polls)
1.Ego clash -17%
2.Extra marital affairs-14%
3.498a & DV act (included monetary reasons)-58%
4.Parental Interference - 11%
As per current survey ...by CNN/IBN team
In India Marraige Success rates : 48%(2009)
78%(2008)
Primary Reasons(Percentage polls)
1.Ego clash -17%
2.Extra marital affairs-14%
3.498a & DV act (included monetary reasons)-58%
4.Parental Interference - 11%
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
PROTEST AGAINST MISUSE OF LAWS
Bangalore, Feb 15, DHNS:
Around a 100 men belonging to the NGO Family Harmony Society took out a candle light protest at the Mahatma Gandhi statue on M G Road against the misuse of gender bias laws.
The protest was against laws such as 498 (A) for dowry harassment, the Domestic Violence Act and CRPC 125, order for maintenance for wives and children. They claimed that the laws were being “heavily misused” by estranged wives to harass husbands and their family members. Further, according to information obtained by the NGO, less than one percent of cases registered were convicted under 498 (A). Their demands included making matrimonial laws gender neutral, introduce punitive action for those misusing the laws and making 498 (A) bailable.
Friday, February 12, 2010
50 MYTHS ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
READ THE BELOW LINK:
http://wemen.us/images/stories/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf
http://wemen.us/images/stories/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf
BLAME JUDGES FOR 3 CRORE PENDING CASES AND ADJOURNMENTS
Justice S N Dhingra of Delhi High Court believes that it is both judges and
lawyers who are responsible for culture of adjournment in courts. We will
come to the part where we decide who is to get more blame between judges and
lawyers, but first let’s read the news below:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/HC-judge-lashes-out-against-cultur\
e-of-adjournments-/articleshow/5511075.cms
NEW DELHI: A Delhi high court judge has blamed his colleagues for the
"culture of adjournment'' that often prolongs cases for years.
Rueing the "latitude shown by the high court'' to lawyers who plead for
adjournments, justice S N Dhingra said: "*It appears as if there is an
understanding between the courts and advocates *that come what may the
orders of trial courts refusing adjournments shall be set aside on mercy
pleas and one more opportunity shall be granted.''
*Claiming that courts often grant adjournments on "frivolous grounds'',
Dhingra said: "A separate breed of advocates has cropped up who are experts
in pleading for adjournments and dragging cases. This culture has to be
brought to an end,''* the HC noted, while upholding a order passed by a
guardianship court in a child custody dispute between a couple. The court
refused to adjourn the case when the *woman's lawyer claimed that he had
left the case files in his car which was stolen 11 days ago. *
The last line shows the cute argument by the lawyer! If you think that a
lawyer will not lie about his car being stolen, maybe you need an education
in what lawyers in India can get away with. In BMW case, the
‘well-respected’ defence lawyers who influenced a key witness and were
caught in a sting operation were fined a mere Rs 2,000 by the bar council
and were not allowed to take cases for 2 months. Long live bar councils! I
am not saying that, lawyers are.
The HC agreed with the decision of the lower court to proceed with the
hearing and close cross examination of witnesses, despite protests by the
advocate of the child's mother. "*Adjournments are sought in the name of
strikes, elections, personal difficulties of the senior or briefing counsels
or because two counsels agree to an adjournment*...
Did you read the last part… *two counsels agree to an adjournment… *so now
if you have a doubt how come your case drags on for so long, don’t just
blame other party’s lawyer; it could well be your own lawyer is a willing
party to this *adjournment game at your expense*.
This whole culture of adjournment is a major reasons why a *case or a
petition, which should be decided in two or three hearings, is disposed of
in more than 100 hearings,'' *the HC noted while dismissing the appeal filed
by the child's mother against the lower court's order.
This is a damning indictment of judiciary and judges. On one hand, prime
minister, law minister, and chief justice rue about 3 crore plus cases
pending in courts; but if a case is dragged from 3 hearings to more than
100, even god in his next avatar cannot reclaim the judiciary from sinking
down.
*Since lawyers do their job in representing their clients, the majority of
blame lies with judges in granting adjournments at the drop of a hat.*
lawyers who are responsible for culture of adjournment in courts. We will
come to the part where we decide who is to get more blame between judges and
lawyers, but first let’s read the news below:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/HC-judge-lashes-out-against-cultur\
e-of-adjournments-/articleshow/5511075.cms
NEW DELHI: A Delhi high court judge has blamed his colleagues for the
"culture of adjournment'' that often prolongs cases for years.
Rueing the "latitude shown by the high court'' to lawyers who plead for
adjournments, justice S N Dhingra said: "*It appears as if there is an
understanding between the courts and advocates *that come what may the
orders of trial courts refusing adjournments shall be set aside on mercy
pleas and one more opportunity shall be granted.''
*Claiming that courts often grant adjournments on "frivolous grounds'',
Dhingra said: "A separate breed of advocates has cropped up who are experts
in pleading for adjournments and dragging cases. This culture has to be
brought to an end,''* the HC noted, while upholding a order passed by a
guardianship court in a child custody dispute between a couple. The court
refused to adjourn the case when the *woman's lawyer claimed that he had
left the case files in his car which was stolen 11 days ago. *
The last line shows the cute argument by the lawyer! If you think that a
lawyer will not lie about his car being stolen, maybe you need an education
in what lawyers in India can get away with. In BMW case, the
‘well-respected’ defence lawyers who influenced a key witness and were
caught in a sting operation were fined a mere Rs 2,000 by the bar council
and were not allowed to take cases for 2 months. Long live bar councils! I
am not saying that, lawyers are.
The HC agreed with the decision of the lower court to proceed with the
hearing and close cross examination of witnesses, despite protests by the
advocate of the child's mother. "*Adjournments are sought in the name of
strikes, elections, personal difficulties of the senior or briefing counsels
or because two counsels agree to an adjournment*...
Did you read the last part… *two counsels agree to an adjournment… *so now
if you have a doubt how come your case drags on for so long, don’t just
blame other party’s lawyer; it could well be your own lawyer is a willing
party to this *adjournment game at your expense*.
This whole culture of adjournment is a major reasons why a *case or a
petition, which should be decided in two or three hearings, is disposed of
in more than 100 hearings,'' *the HC noted while dismissing the appeal filed
by the child's mother against the lower court's order.
This is a damning indictment of judiciary and judges. On one hand, prime
minister, law minister, and chief justice rue about 3 crore plus cases
pending in courts; but if a case is dragged from 3 hearings to more than
100, even god in his next avatar cannot reclaim the judiciary from sinking
down.
*Since lawyers do their job in representing their clients, the majority of
blame lies with judges in granting adjournments at the drop of a hat.*
Delhi High Court slaps fine for vexatious maintenance case on already divorced woman
Justice S N Dhingra of Delhi High Court gives a judgment which bars a woman who was having a prior mutually agreed divorce settlement from filing a fresh maintenance case on husband. The interesting part is that court slapped a fine of Rs 10,000 on the woman for filing a frivolous and vexatious case. See news below:
http://www.prokerala.com/news/articles/a110246.html
The Delhi High Court Monday slapped a fine on a woman for contempt, taking serious note of the fact that she had concealed she was employed and continued to claim maintenance from her husband, and filed cases against him despite an undertaking to court.
Justice S.N. Dhingra slapped a fine of Rs.10,000 on Manjit Kaur for concealing the facts from the court and violating the undertaking she gave in another court in Jalandhar that following her divorce she will not file any case against her husband after settlement.
"Where a person after concealing the material facts about her own employment and about the undertaking given to the court, files an application for maintenance just to harass the opposite side (husband), this amounts to violation of undertaking given by her," the judge said.
The interesting part is that per se the court is not barring woman from filing maintenance, but only referring to violation of a particular clause of the mutual divorce agreement between the ex-couple.
The court also took note of the fact that the woman was working as a teacher in a school in Jalandhar but did not disclose it before the court and claimed maintenance of Rs.3,000 per month.
Despite a final settlement between the two in 2000, the woman filed petitions against her husband and violated the undertaking that she will not harass him or his family members.
The court directed the woman to seek maintenance for herself after her retirement from her present job, and said, "Claim maintenance after disclosing pension and other income and properties to the court which she holds in Delhi or at other places."
Which means that per se she is not barred from seeking maintenance again. But why even this generous suggestion to claimant wife who is fined by court! See, your honour, one point is that HMA 25 which deals with alimony is not one-sided but gender neutral. So the court could well have advised husband to -- “retire from present job, and claim maintenance after disclosing properties and sources of income”. Just doing my bit to legal knowledge and jurisprudence he he…
http://www.prokerala.com/news/articles/a110246.html
The Delhi High Court Monday slapped a fine on a woman for contempt, taking serious note of the fact that she had concealed she was employed and continued to claim maintenance from her husband, and filed cases against him despite an undertaking to court.
Justice S.N. Dhingra slapped a fine of Rs.10,000 on Manjit Kaur for concealing the facts from the court and violating the undertaking she gave in another court in Jalandhar that following her divorce she will not file any case against her husband after settlement.
"Where a person after concealing the material facts about her own employment and about the undertaking given to the court, files an application for maintenance just to harass the opposite side (husband), this amounts to violation of undertaking given by her," the judge said.
The interesting part is that per se the court is not barring woman from filing maintenance, but only referring to violation of a particular clause of the mutual divorce agreement between the ex-couple.
The court also took note of the fact that the woman was working as a teacher in a school in Jalandhar but did not disclose it before the court and claimed maintenance of Rs.3,000 per month.
Despite a final settlement between the two in 2000, the woman filed petitions against her husband and violated the undertaking that she will not harass him or his family members.
The court directed the woman to seek maintenance for herself after her retirement from her present job, and said, "Claim maintenance after disclosing pension and other income and properties to the court which she holds in Delhi or at other places."
Which means that per se she is not barred from seeking maintenance again. But why even this generous suggestion to claimant wife who is fined by court! See, your honour, one point is that HMA 25 which deals with alimony is not one-sided but gender neutral. So the court could well have advised husband to -- “retire from present job, and claim maintenance after disclosing properties and sources of income”. Just doing my bit to legal knowledge and jurisprudence he he…
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
MEMORANDUM AGAINST IPC 498A MISUSE
By Mandeep Puri
The members of Save Indian Family Foundation, a NGO fighting against the misuse of Pro-women laws, submitted a memorandum to The Director General of UT Police, S.K. Jain at the Police Headquarters, Sector 9.
On behalf of the DG, SP Operations R.S Ghumman received the memorandum and assured that adequate steps will be taken to stop the misuse of all pro woman laws especially IPC 498 A in Chandigarh.
He assures the members of Save Indian Family Foundation that the orders have already been issued to the concerned authorities and officials to investigate the matter freely and fairly, making sure that the arrest should be the last resort.
He claimed that the UT police is efficient to deal with such cases. He further claimed that no false cases will be registered and no innocent person will be put behind the bars.
Backing his claims, the SP provided the members with figures of his unit, wherein nearly 50 per cent of the cases have been amicably settled after counselling. Only in the rarest of the condition FIRs have been registered. He said that the performance of the UT police is much better than the other states where pro woman laws are being openly misused.
However, the members of Save Indian Family Foundation insisted that those misusing the laws should be penalised and simultaneous cases should be registered against the dowry givers too (DP3). They also demanded that stay arrest or a notice should be given to the accused family members so that no innocent is arrested before the trail begins.
Nitin Gupta, the secretary of the Chandigarh unit said, "We stand for Protection of Women, but against misuse of Women protection laws. These "women-protection laws", which are in essence wife-protection laws, assume that wives are always honest victims and would never jeopardize their own family life by making false claims of abuse. The draconian law, IPC Section 498A, in particular, allows the arrest of the husband and his male and female relatives, irrespective of their age, martial status or even health condition, solely on the basis of allegations of a wife, without any evidence or investigation".
"Several authorities have noted that in close to 98% of cases filed under Section 498A, there no conviction, which means that this law is misused and grossly ineffective (Reference CSR research report) and that the complaints were only filed with ulterior motives", said Gaurav Saini, who handover the memorandum to the SP.
"Noted activist Madhu Kishwar acknowledged that IPC Section 498A is heavily misused, and that a significant proportion of individuals who approach "Manushi" these days are mothers-in-law and husbands who are falsely accused. The Supreme Court of India has labeled the misuse of IPC Section 498A as "legal terrorism" (Reference: Writ Petition (civil) 141 of 2005, Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.)", added Gaurav.
Demands:
Arrest Stay or notice to the families:
If the investigating office feels that an FIR has to be registered, the family members should be given a notice of at least three days. Families are can ruined when arrested let the trail court punish if anyone is guilty.
Registration of DP3:
There is a provision, wherein taking and giving dowry is an offence. However, police are quick to register an FIR against husbands and their families for seeking dowry, but not a single FIR has been registered against girls or their families for giving dowry. DP3 complaint should be simultaneously registered.
Proper and Fair Investigation should be made.
Section 498A should be properly and fairly investigated and arrest should be the last resort. The families should not be punished even before guilt is established.
Persons who misuse IPC 498A and Domestic Violence Law should be penalized.
Misuse of the process of law not only costs the public exchequer dearly, but also destroys the personal lives of many innocent citizens. Misuse of law should be treated as a serious crime, and persons who use women-protection laws as weapons for settling personal scores in marital disputes should be severely punished.
Save Indian Family(SIF) is a strong team of dedicated families comprising of victims of "misuse of 498a" and other Gender biased Women-Protection laws like Dowry Prohibition Act, Domestic Violence Act, etc.", including NRIs, Senior citizens who campaign and create awareness about gross injustice and abuse that happen in Indian Legal system. SIF has over 20 NGOs and 50,000 individuals as its members across the globe.
Mandeep Puri is a freelance writer who can do anything with words. He has been a Tribune crime reporter, business, sport, entertainment and municipal reporter. Contact Mandeep at his blog mandeeppuri.blogspot.com or at NewsBlaze.
The members of Save Indian Family Foundation, a NGO fighting against the misuse of Pro-women laws, submitted a memorandum to The Director General of UT Police, S.K. Jain at the Police Headquarters, Sector 9.
On behalf of the DG, SP Operations R.S Ghumman received the memorandum and assured that adequate steps will be taken to stop the misuse of all pro woman laws especially IPC 498 A in Chandigarh.
He assures the members of Save Indian Family Foundation that the orders have already been issued to the concerned authorities and officials to investigate the matter freely and fairly, making sure that the arrest should be the last resort.
He claimed that the UT police is efficient to deal with such cases. He further claimed that no false cases will be registered and no innocent person will be put behind the bars.
Backing his claims, the SP provided the members with figures of his unit, wherein nearly 50 per cent of the cases have been amicably settled after counselling. Only in the rarest of the condition FIRs have been registered. He said that the performance of the UT police is much better than the other states where pro woman laws are being openly misused.
However, the members of Save Indian Family Foundation insisted that those misusing the laws should be penalised and simultaneous cases should be registered against the dowry givers too (DP3). They also demanded that stay arrest or a notice should be given to the accused family members so that no innocent is arrested before the trail begins.
Nitin Gupta, the secretary of the Chandigarh unit said, "We stand for Protection of Women, but against misuse of Women protection laws. These "women-protection laws", which are in essence wife-protection laws, assume that wives are always honest victims and would never jeopardize their own family life by making false claims of abuse. The draconian law, IPC Section 498A, in particular, allows the arrest of the husband and his male and female relatives, irrespective of their age, martial status or even health condition, solely on the basis of allegations of a wife, without any evidence or investigation".
"Several authorities have noted that in close to 98% of cases filed under Section 498A, there no conviction, which means that this law is misused and grossly ineffective (Reference CSR research report) and that the complaints were only filed with ulterior motives", said Gaurav Saini, who handover the memorandum to the SP.
"Noted activist Madhu Kishwar acknowledged that IPC Section 498A is heavily misused, and that a significant proportion of individuals who approach "Manushi" these days are mothers-in-law and husbands who are falsely accused. The Supreme Court of India has labeled the misuse of IPC Section 498A as "legal terrorism" (Reference: Writ Petition (civil) 141 of 2005, Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.)", added Gaurav.
Demands:
Arrest Stay or notice to the families:
If the investigating office feels that an FIR has to be registered, the family members should be given a notice of at least three days. Families are can ruined when arrested let the trail court punish if anyone is guilty.
Registration of DP3:
There is a provision, wherein taking and giving dowry is an offence. However, police are quick to register an FIR against husbands and their families for seeking dowry, but not a single FIR has been registered against girls or their families for giving dowry. DP3 complaint should be simultaneously registered.
Proper and Fair Investigation should be made.
Section 498A should be properly and fairly investigated and arrest should be the last resort. The families should not be punished even before guilt is established.
Persons who misuse IPC 498A and Domestic Violence Law should be penalized.
Misuse of the process of law not only costs the public exchequer dearly, but also destroys the personal lives of many innocent citizens. Misuse of law should be treated as a serious crime, and persons who use women-protection laws as weapons for settling personal scores in marital disputes should be severely punished.
Save Indian Family(SIF) is a strong team of dedicated families comprising of victims of "misuse of 498a" and other Gender biased Women-Protection laws like Dowry Prohibition Act, Domestic Violence Act, etc.", including NRIs, Senior citizens who campaign and create awareness about gross injustice and abuse that happen in Indian Legal system. SIF has over 20 NGOs and 50,000 individuals as its members across the globe.
Mandeep Puri is a freelance writer who can do anything with words. He has been a Tribune crime reporter, business, sport, entertainment and municipal reporter. Contact Mandeep at his blog mandeeppuri.blogspot.com or at NewsBlaze.
MAN TO SELL KIDNEY TO PAY ALIMONY - COURTESY BARBARIC MAINTENANCE LAWS
BELOW IS A NEWS PUBLISHED IN VARIOUS MAJOR NEWSPAPERS OF INDIA
Written by Vineeta Pandey
Thursday, 10 September 2009 11:32
New Delhi: A man in Ropar has approached a court in Punjab for permission to sell his kidney to pay Rs8,000 maintenance to his estranged wife. The man's monthly income is Rs3,600.
While the judgement is still awaited, this unique case has generated strong demands for a "rational maintenance" in proportion to the husband's salary.
A woman can seek maintenance from her estranged husband under laws like Section 125 CrPC, Section 23 of Domestic Violence Act (DVA), Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), Section 18 Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Acts (HAMA), Section 25 Hindu Marriage Act etc. In fact, Section 24 of HMA even provides relief to a man who has no independent income, besides necessary expense for court proceedings. But husbands claim that men are rarely considered for maintenance while in many cases maintenance has been awarded to wives much beyond the capacity of the husbands.
They now want the judiciary to ponder over the fact that a working and well-qualified wife is an empowered woman and has, hence, no right to claim maintenance.
These husbands have written to law minister Veerappa Moily and the Chief Justice of India, proposing a concept of three year interest-free loan to non-working spouses to enable them to get gainful employment.
"The courts should not force an unemployed man to pay maintenance. We have seen cases were husbands are forced to either sell their organs or told to beg/borrow/steal to pay maintenance. Maintenance should be looked upon as a means to survive, not an easy route to tax-free luxuries. The way courts are ordering maintenance in the range Rs20,000-30,000 is completely unacceptable. Maintenance should not be a matter of right but awarded in certain circumstances," said Virag Dhulia of Save India Family Foundation (SIFF), an organisation of harassed husbands.
While some recent judgments indicate that the courts are slowly trying to maintain a balance, the men say it is a drop in the ocean. "The pendulum swings too far to one side. Judiciary has to be sensitive to reality and actual conditions," lawyer Prashant Bhushan said.
Written by Vineeta Pandey
Thursday, 10 September 2009 11:32
New Delhi: A man in Ropar has approached a court in Punjab for permission to sell his kidney to pay Rs8,000 maintenance to his estranged wife. The man's monthly income is Rs3,600.
While the judgement is still awaited, this unique case has generated strong demands for a "rational maintenance" in proportion to the husband's salary.
A woman can seek maintenance from her estranged husband under laws like Section 125 CrPC, Section 23 of Domestic Violence Act (DVA), Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), Section 18 Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Acts (HAMA), Section 25 Hindu Marriage Act etc. In fact, Section 24 of HMA even provides relief to a man who has no independent income, besides necessary expense for court proceedings. But husbands claim that men are rarely considered for maintenance while in many cases maintenance has been awarded to wives much beyond the capacity of the husbands.
They now want the judiciary to ponder over the fact that a working and well-qualified wife is an empowered woman and has, hence, no right to claim maintenance.
These husbands have written to law minister Veerappa Moily and the Chief Justice of India, proposing a concept of three year interest-free loan to non-working spouses to enable them to get gainful employment.
"The courts should not force an unemployed man to pay maintenance. We have seen cases were husbands are forced to either sell their organs or told to beg/borrow/steal to pay maintenance. Maintenance should be looked upon as a means to survive, not an easy route to tax-free luxuries. The way courts are ordering maintenance in the range Rs20,000-30,000 is completely unacceptable. Maintenance should not be a matter of right but awarded in certain circumstances," said Virag Dhulia of Save India Family Foundation (SIFF), an organisation of harassed husbands.
While some recent judgments indicate that the courts are slowly trying to maintain a balance, the men say it is a drop in the ocean. "The pendulum swings too far to one side. Judiciary has to be sensitive to reality and actual conditions," lawyer Prashant Bhushan said.
Pay the maintenance
So easy for the Judge to order, so terrible for the man to pay - But what to do - Its India & the laws are biased.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday said that Rs 4,000 as maintenance cannot be too much especially if the same is for the children.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by Zuber Khan, upset by a family court order that asked him to pay Rs 2,000 per child as maintenance to his wife after they separated.
Zuber and Seema Khan got married in 1997. The couple had two children, but differences cropped up between the couple and they separated in 2005. Seema then moved the family court for her and the children's maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The family court declined maintenance to Seema, saying that she was a working woman and could fend for herself. Initially, the family court ordered Zuber to pay Rs 1,000 as maintenance per child but, after Seema's objection, enhanced it to Rs 2,000 per child.
The court in its order said that the responsibility of the children should be shouldered equally by both parents. The judge also said that the cost of living had increased and education of the children has to be kept in mind. Since the children were staying with their mother the court deemed it fit to enhance the amount.
Ashok Toraskar, who was representing Zuber, said the husband was in no position to give Rs 4,000 as maintenance as he was himself doing odd jobs to make both ends meet. “His monthly income is only Rs 5,000 and it is very difficult to give that much as maintenance,” said Toraskar.
Justice S C Dharmadhikari, however remarked that there was no reason to interfere with the lower court order as it was fair. “You think that Rs 4,000 is too much for maintenance. Anyway, this maintenance is not for the wife it is for the children. I see no reason why this should be reduced,” he said.
Zuber who was present in the court could not control himself. As soon as he heard the judge, he raised his hand and appealed to the court, “Sir, mere se nahi hoga. Meri tankhwah hi utni nahi hai. (Sir, I will not be able to do it, my income is not that much.)”
The court reprimanded him, saying he wasn't allowed to address the court directly.
It then dismissed the petition.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday said that Rs 4,000 as maintenance cannot be too much especially if the same is for the children.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by Zuber Khan, upset by a family court order that asked him to pay Rs 2,000 per child as maintenance to his wife after they separated.
Zuber and Seema Khan got married in 1997. The couple had two children, but differences cropped up between the couple and they separated in 2005. Seema then moved the family court for her and the children's maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The family court declined maintenance to Seema, saying that she was a working woman and could fend for herself. Initially, the family court ordered Zuber to pay Rs 1,000 as maintenance per child but, after Seema's objection, enhanced it to Rs 2,000 per child.
The court in its order said that the responsibility of the children should be shouldered equally by both parents. The judge also said that the cost of living had increased and education of the children has to be kept in mind. Since the children were staying with their mother the court deemed it fit to enhance the amount.
Ashok Toraskar, who was representing Zuber, said the husband was in no position to give Rs 4,000 as maintenance as he was himself doing odd jobs to make both ends meet. “His monthly income is only Rs 5,000 and it is very difficult to give that much as maintenance,” said Toraskar.
Justice S C Dharmadhikari, however remarked that there was no reason to interfere with the lower court order as it was fair. “You think that Rs 4,000 is too much for maintenance. Anyway, this maintenance is not for the wife it is for the children. I see no reason why this should be reduced,” he said.
Zuber who was present in the court could not control himself. As soon as he heard the judge, he raised his hand and appealed to the court, “Sir, mere se nahi hoga. Meri tankhwah hi utni nahi hai. (Sir, I will not be able to do it, my income is not that much.)”
The court reprimanded him, saying he wasn't allowed to address the court directly.
It then dismissed the petition.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Indian Beta Males demand right to peaceful existance
The United States based One Step institute New York has sponsored a new academic discipline titled "Male Studies”. On April 7, 2010, there will be an unprecedented symposium at Wagner College, broadcast live via the Internet to participants throughout the world. The subject, Male Studies: A New Academic Discipline, brings the world's leading scholars together to discuss Male Studies at the university level. Leading US based MRA Paul Elam states that "Male studies programs are the answer to the feminist hegemony that has dominated academia and has been poisoning the education system for more than a generation." He goes further to state that American Militant Feministi institutions like NOMAS, AMSA and the AAUW are just three of many groups which have given us the plague of fabricated wage gaps, distorted, male-demonizing approaches to domestic violence and a host of other corrupted agendas aimed at the destruction of men and boys.
The Indian situation
With over 56000 husbands being driven to suicide annually according to the date released by the NCRB ,and millions more suffering from depression caused to apathy on all fronts , Indian men today are in dire need of serious attention . Indian men are emotionally castrated from birth and seldom receive any kind of sympathy support from the society, the government or the Judiciary. The situation of men’s rights in the US and India have many similarities although the problems in India are much more severe. Unlike the US India is also cursed with a glacial pace of justice and has a far less evolved criminal justice system. Indian laws and judges still live and breathe Manusmrithi . India too has its fair share of militant feminist organizations some having affiliations to the political parties while most are some funded by the center and operating under the guise of women’s welfare agencies. The Annual Budget for WCD ministry in India is Rs 7500 crores and the Annual Budget of the Anti Men NCW is Rs 9 crores. India too since independence has never allocated any money for men's' issues , men’s welfare or has sponsored men’s studies although India allocated Rs 1206 cores every year for Animal Welfare efforts. The government has not even taken any steps to stem the suicides of Indian husbands .The Alpha males at the center have used the feminists and the state machinery as weapons to control the Beta Males and has always considered them disposable . The Feminists on the other hands have ensured that the alpha males are happy so that their funding remains secure. This sort of symbiotic relationship between militant feminists and the alpha males has led to slow strangulation of Indian beta males from all fronts. From being denied opportunities to stand in elections on account of being a male , to being denied bail on accounts of being husbands , to being considered criminals even without charges being proven in Domestic Violence cases, to paying more tax on the same income the Indian Beta male today has a noose so tight around his neck that his neck may snap at any minute and hence there arises an urgent need to firstly fund male studies to understand the problems and issues that boys and men face before taking steps to eradicate them so that beta men too can have a chance to peaceful existence.
The Indian situation
With over 56000 husbands being driven to suicide annually according to the date released by the NCRB ,and millions more suffering from depression caused to apathy on all fronts , Indian men today are in dire need of serious attention . Indian men are emotionally castrated from birth and seldom receive any kind of sympathy support from the society, the government or the Judiciary. The situation of men’s rights in the US and India have many similarities although the problems in India are much more severe. Unlike the US India is also cursed with a glacial pace of justice and has a far less evolved criminal justice system. Indian laws and judges still live and breathe Manusmrithi . India too has its fair share of militant feminist organizations some having affiliations to the political parties while most are some funded by the center and operating under the guise of women’s welfare agencies. The Annual Budget for WCD ministry in India is Rs 7500 crores and the Annual Budget of the Anti Men NCW is Rs 9 crores. India too since independence has never allocated any money for men's' issues , men’s welfare or has sponsored men’s studies although India allocated Rs 1206 cores every year for Animal Welfare efforts. The government has not even taken any steps to stem the suicides of Indian husbands .The Alpha males at the center have used the feminists and the state machinery as weapons to control the Beta Males and has always considered them disposable . The Feminists on the other hands have ensured that the alpha males are happy so that their funding remains secure. This sort of symbiotic relationship between militant feminists and the alpha males has led to slow strangulation of Indian beta males from all fronts. From being denied opportunities to stand in elections on account of being a male , to being denied bail on accounts of being husbands , to being considered criminals even without charges being proven in Domestic Violence cases, to paying more tax on the same income the Indian Beta male today has a noose so tight around his neck that his neck may snap at any minute and hence there arises an urgent need to firstly fund male studies to understand the problems and issues that boys and men face before taking steps to eradicate them so that beta men too can have a chance to peaceful existence.
Man Proposes - Your Honor disposes
Public has a short memory and this has been proved time and again. “Irretrievable breakdown of marriage” was quite in discussion until some time ago and caught a high with the case of Smriti Shinde – daughter of ex-law minister, Sushil Kumar Shinde – filing a Public Interest Litigation to make the same as a ground of divorce as well but now the topic is completely out of discussion.
And further unfolding of the case revealed that it was actually a case of a “Mutual Consent” Divorce filed and one of the spouses refusing to abide by the mutual consent agreement even after a part of the agreement, based on which the consent was drawn, being fulfilled and thus divorce not being granted.
The performance of the judiciary in the society in general and in matrimonial cases in particular has not been something laudable. More often than not, the judges are driven by emotion and pre-defined stereotypic gender notions in arriving at their decisions leading to not only ignorance of evidence placed on record and the data available, but also at arriving upon socially harmful interpretations of law and at times overstepping their constitutional limitations and boundaries. It has also led to judges acting as “Social Workers” proving Harold Laski correct in the Grammar of Politics – “Judges do not deliver judgments; they only give decisions. They only decide which side argued better”.
The issue of non-compliance of mutual consent divorces by either of the spouses even after the full/partial execution of the terms of the consent, leading to agony to the other spouse is not limited or exclusive to women. Husbands are more at the receiving end of such practices wherein often they end up executing the payment part and then keep running from pillars to post for divorce which is held back at the whims and fancy of the wife.
Taking note of the gravity of the situation and realizing that it is more of a social problem and not a gender problem, a men’s rights activist from Bangalore, Pandurang Katti, wrote to the same bench before which the PIL was filed by Smriti Shinde. The letter requested the bench to consider elevating the letter to a PIL for setting general guidelines in mutual consent cases and offered help to the judiciary in assisting to arrive at a just conclusion.
More than a month has passed after the letter was officially received by the bench; the man is yet to hear from the bench. And then the judiciary keeps complaining of backlog of cases and being overburdened etc.
1. Well, if one does not work, what remains to be said?
2. If truly, the judiciary is overloaded, then why do they work only 5 hrs in a day, why not 10 hrs?
3. Why do they take more vacations than schoolchildren?
4. Why do they keep giving adjournments after adjournments rather than using their judicial discretionary power to keep delay of cases in control?
5. Why don’t they come up with a filtration mechanism in admission of cases?
6. Why don’t they invoke provisions under section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code to punish people who file false cases?
7. Why don’t they entertain perjury petitions to enable litigants to take action against people lying on oath, misleading the courts for their sinister and selfish agenda to be realized and waste precious judicial time?
8. Why are they so afraid of transparency and accountability and run away from the Right to Information Act provisions?
9. And, why does it take them decades to decide on petty issues like granting divorce or deny granting the same?
10. Do they fail to understand that a couple is no longer interested in staying together and it is just and prudent to allow them to lead lives peacefully rather than just being forced to hang around in courts loitering for non-existent justice?
Even in this particular case, the Bench is unable to decide whether to accept the letter and elevate it into a PIL or to dispose it. It further drives home the message that the judiciary is not at all ready to LISTEN to men.
A copy of the letter sent is available at,
Letter Part1
Letter Part 2
And further unfolding of the case revealed that it was actually a case of a “Mutual Consent” Divorce filed and one of the spouses refusing to abide by the mutual consent agreement even after a part of the agreement, based on which the consent was drawn, being fulfilled and thus divorce not being granted.
The performance of the judiciary in the society in general and in matrimonial cases in particular has not been something laudable. More often than not, the judges are driven by emotion and pre-defined stereotypic gender notions in arriving at their decisions leading to not only ignorance of evidence placed on record and the data available, but also at arriving upon socially harmful interpretations of law and at times overstepping their constitutional limitations and boundaries. It has also led to judges acting as “Social Workers” proving Harold Laski correct in the Grammar of Politics – “Judges do not deliver judgments; they only give decisions. They only decide which side argued better”.
The issue of non-compliance of mutual consent divorces by either of the spouses even after the full/partial execution of the terms of the consent, leading to agony to the other spouse is not limited or exclusive to women. Husbands are more at the receiving end of such practices wherein often they end up executing the payment part and then keep running from pillars to post for divorce which is held back at the whims and fancy of the wife.
Taking note of the gravity of the situation and realizing that it is more of a social problem and not a gender problem, a men’s rights activist from Bangalore, Pandurang Katti, wrote to the same bench before which the PIL was filed by Smriti Shinde. The letter requested the bench to consider elevating the letter to a PIL for setting general guidelines in mutual consent cases and offered help to the judiciary in assisting to arrive at a just conclusion.
More than a month has passed after the letter was officially received by the bench; the man is yet to hear from the bench. And then the judiciary keeps complaining of backlog of cases and being overburdened etc.
1. Well, if one does not work, what remains to be said?
2. If truly, the judiciary is overloaded, then why do they work only 5 hrs in a day, why not 10 hrs?
3. Why do they take more vacations than schoolchildren?
4. Why do they keep giving adjournments after adjournments rather than using their judicial discretionary power to keep delay of cases in control?
5. Why don’t they come up with a filtration mechanism in admission of cases?
6. Why don’t they invoke provisions under section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code to punish people who file false cases?
7. Why don’t they entertain perjury petitions to enable litigants to take action against people lying on oath, misleading the courts for their sinister and selfish agenda to be realized and waste precious judicial time?
8. Why are they so afraid of transparency and accountability and run away from the Right to Information Act provisions?
9. And, why does it take them decades to decide on petty issues like granting divorce or deny granting the same?
10. Do they fail to understand that a couple is no longer interested in staying together and it is just and prudent to allow them to lead lives peacefully rather than just being forced to hang around in courts loitering for non-existent justice?
Even in this particular case, the Bench is unable to decide whether to accept the letter and elevate it into a PIL or to dispose it. It further drives home the message that the judiciary is not at all ready to LISTEN to men.
A copy of the letter sent is available at,
Letter Part1
Letter Part 2
JUDICIAL REFORMS IN INDIA- WILL THIS EVER HAPPEN?
CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORMS
Resolution passed at the
3rd National Convention on “Making the Judiciary Accountable and Responsive to the
People”
6th - 7th February 2010
Nehru Memorial Library, Teen Murti House, New Delhi
The two day 3rd National Convention on “Making the Judiciary Accountable and
Responsive to the People” organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms was held at the Nehru Memorial Library, Teen Murti House, New Delhi on the 6th - 7th of February 2010. The Convention was attended by over 200 people representing various organisations and movements from across the country. The Convention was addressed by a range of distinguished speakers on the twin issues of judicial accountability and reforms specifically dealing with the issues of appointment of judges and complaints against and removal of judges, the judiciary and public discourse, the judiciary and the environment development dichotomy, the judiciary and civil liberties as well as the judiciary and the poor. At the conclusion of the convention, the Campaign resolved as follows:
The present system of appointments by the Collegium of Judges suffers from nepotism, arbitrariness and lack of transparency. We need a full time Judicial Appointments Commission for selecting judges of the higher judiciary as well as members of Commissions, Tribunals, etc. This should not comprise merely of retired judges, but should include other eminent members of civil society. This Commission must first lay down the criteria for selection and the method for selection as per the criteria. In particular the understanding of and sensitivity towards the social conditions of the common people must be an important criteria for judging the suitability of judicial appointments. The selection process must be transparent and the credentials and qualifications of the prospective appointees must be in the public domain.
The difference in the retirement age of High Court and Supreme Court judges has made many High Court judges subservient to the Collegium who decide their elevation. This has led to lobbying among High Court judges and Chief Justices as well. The Campaign believes that there is no justification for a different retirement age for High Court and Supreme Court Judges.
The fact that there is considerable corruption in the higher judiciary is evident from the string of recent scandals such as the Ghaziabad Provident Fund scam, the Chandigarh cash at judges door scam, the Justice Soumitra Sen and Justice Dinakaran cases, etc. The present system of impeachment has proved to be totally impracticable and ineffective for disciplining judges. There should be a similar commission for dealing with complaints against judges. This must have its own independent investigative machinery and should be empowered to examine the complaints and recommend the action against the errant judges, which would include removal and registration of criminal cases against them. The commission may appoint a tribunal of three jurists to adjudicate on the misconduct of judges before its final decision. These complaints must also be dealt with transparently. A code of conduct for judges must be framed with full public consultation and made strictly enforceable.
The Campaign notes that misconduct of the bar has also grown enormously in recent times. The Bar Council of India has completely failed in disciplining misconducting lawyers due to conflicts of interest and corruption within the Bar Council of India. The Bar too must be made accountable to a completely independent statutory body. This is important because the bar is also an important actor in the administration of justice. It is the principle feeder cadre for judges and is often complicit in judicial corruption. We feel there is no justification for retaining “scandalising the court or lowering the authority of the court” in the definition of criminal contempt and this should be deleted. Respect for or public confidence in the judiciary depends upon how the actions of the judiciary are perceived and not on preventing people from making any kind (including harsh) criticism. The laws of civil and criminal defamation are adequate to protect judges from scurrilous abuse.
The Campaign notes with regret that though the judiciary had itself declared the Right to Information as a fundamental right and had applied it to various institutions including candidates contesting elections, it is now dragging its feet and resisting the application of the RTI Act to itself. This is being done by framing rules which deter citizens from asking for information and put unreasonable restrictions on the disclosure of administrative or financial information about the court. This is also being done by the interference of the Courts with judgments of the Central Information Commission ordering disclosure of information with the judiciary such as for appointments of judges and complaints against judges, etc. The judiciary is thus defeating the object of the Right to Information Act which is to make every institution including the judiciary accountable to the people.
The Campaign finds that the judiciary has of late rendered many decisions displaying gross insensitivity to human rights and civil liberties particularly of the weak and the poor. Draconian laws such as POTA, TADA, AFSPA has been upheld and progressive laws such as the IMDT Act have been struck down and other pro people laws such as Contract Labour Act, Industrial Disputes Act are not being implemented. The insensitivity towards human rights is also apparent from the fact that even where prosecutions of innocent persons were found to be malafide and based on fabricated evidence, no action was ordered against the offending police officers. This has led to impunity in the police and the spectre of innocent persons being framed in a large number of bogus cases. The Supreme Court has gone to the extent of saying that laws made by Parliament should be interpreted in accordance with the economic policies of the executive government. In certain instances, this has led to a peculiar situation where economic policies of the government are given the judicial stamp. This often strangulates political debate, as well as mobilisation of public opinion.
In particular, in the area of workmen jurisprudence and land acquisition disputes, the
Campaign notes the attitude of the judiciary as being dismal. The current judicial system is getting far removed from the needs and rights of the poor and deprived section of society in substantial deviation from the directive principles of state policy as enshrined in the Constitution of India and even restricting the interpretation “right to life” as delineated in earlier pronouncements of the court. In fact the common people have virtually no access to the judicial system being unable to afford lawyers and also often because the language of the court is alien to the culture. The security obsession of the superior courts is also preventing access even to visitors thus destroying the very concept of open courts. With the current technology is would be easily possible to video record and indeed web telecast court proceedings which must be started immediately.
Courts have often been used to execute the desires of the incumbent government even against the law. Thus jhuggis along the Yamuna Pushta were demolished on the orders of the court to pave the way for the common wealth games village and the Akshardham Temple , in violation of formal government policy.
The Courts have acted whimsically and arbitrarily on environmental matters and have often invoked environment to demolish jhuggis, displace forest dwellers, etc. However the same considerations have not prevented them from allowing the use of the same spaces for corporate interests. There is a clear need for the courts to strengthen and rationalise the systems of environmental appraisal and clearance. Environmental approval committees should be given statutory status and appointed in a transparent manner to represent particularly the interests of the concerned masses rather than “technical corporate or bureaucratic interests”. The statutory appellate authority should also be transparently appointed through the judicial appointments commission.
Resolution passed at the
3rd National Convention on “Making the Judiciary Accountable and Responsive to the
People”
6th - 7th February 2010
Nehru Memorial Library, Teen Murti House, New Delhi
The two day 3rd National Convention on “Making the Judiciary Accountable and
Responsive to the People” organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms was held at the Nehru Memorial Library, Teen Murti House, New Delhi on the 6th - 7th of February 2010. The Convention was attended by over 200 people representing various organisations and movements from across the country. The Convention was addressed by a range of distinguished speakers on the twin issues of judicial accountability and reforms specifically dealing with the issues of appointment of judges and complaints against and removal of judges, the judiciary and public discourse, the judiciary and the environment development dichotomy, the judiciary and civil liberties as well as the judiciary and the poor. At the conclusion of the convention, the Campaign resolved as follows:
The present system of appointments by the Collegium of Judges suffers from nepotism, arbitrariness and lack of transparency. We need a full time Judicial Appointments Commission for selecting judges of the higher judiciary as well as members of Commissions, Tribunals, etc. This should not comprise merely of retired judges, but should include other eminent members of civil society. This Commission must first lay down the criteria for selection and the method for selection as per the criteria. In particular the understanding of and sensitivity towards the social conditions of the common people must be an important criteria for judging the suitability of judicial appointments. The selection process must be transparent and the credentials and qualifications of the prospective appointees must be in the public domain.
The difference in the retirement age of High Court and Supreme Court judges has made many High Court judges subservient to the Collegium who decide their elevation. This has led to lobbying among High Court judges and Chief Justices as well. The Campaign believes that there is no justification for a different retirement age for High Court and Supreme Court Judges.
The fact that there is considerable corruption in the higher judiciary is evident from the string of recent scandals such as the Ghaziabad Provident Fund scam, the Chandigarh cash at judges door scam, the Justice Soumitra Sen and Justice Dinakaran cases, etc. The present system of impeachment has proved to be totally impracticable and ineffective for disciplining judges. There should be a similar commission for dealing with complaints against judges. This must have its own independent investigative machinery and should be empowered to examine the complaints and recommend the action against the errant judges, which would include removal and registration of criminal cases against them. The commission may appoint a tribunal of three jurists to adjudicate on the misconduct of judges before its final decision. These complaints must also be dealt with transparently. A code of conduct for judges must be framed with full public consultation and made strictly enforceable.
The Campaign notes that misconduct of the bar has also grown enormously in recent times. The Bar Council of India has completely failed in disciplining misconducting lawyers due to conflicts of interest and corruption within the Bar Council of India. The Bar too must be made accountable to a completely independent statutory body. This is important because the bar is also an important actor in the administration of justice. It is the principle feeder cadre for judges and is often complicit in judicial corruption. We feel there is no justification for retaining “scandalising the court or lowering the authority of the court” in the definition of criminal contempt and this should be deleted. Respect for or public confidence in the judiciary depends upon how the actions of the judiciary are perceived and not on preventing people from making any kind (including harsh) criticism. The laws of civil and criminal defamation are adequate to protect judges from scurrilous abuse.
The Campaign notes with regret that though the judiciary had itself declared the Right to Information as a fundamental right and had applied it to various institutions including candidates contesting elections, it is now dragging its feet and resisting the application of the RTI Act to itself. This is being done by framing rules which deter citizens from asking for information and put unreasonable restrictions on the disclosure of administrative or financial information about the court. This is also being done by the interference of the Courts with judgments of the Central Information Commission ordering disclosure of information with the judiciary such as for appointments of judges and complaints against judges, etc. The judiciary is thus defeating the object of the Right to Information Act which is to make every institution including the judiciary accountable to the people.
The Campaign finds that the judiciary has of late rendered many decisions displaying gross insensitivity to human rights and civil liberties particularly of the weak and the poor. Draconian laws such as POTA, TADA, AFSPA has been upheld and progressive laws such as the IMDT Act have been struck down and other pro people laws such as Contract Labour Act, Industrial Disputes Act are not being implemented. The insensitivity towards human rights is also apparent from the fact that even where prosecutions of innocent persons were found to be malafide and based on fabricated evidence, no action was ordered against the offending police officers. This has led to impunity in the police and the spectre of innocent persons being framed in a large number of bogus cases. The Supreme Court has gone to the extent of saying that laws made by Parliament should be interpreted in accordance with the economic policies of the executive government. In certain instances, this has led to a peculiar situation where economic policies of the government are given the judicial stamp. This often strangulates political debate, as well as mobilisation of public opinion.
In particular, in the area of workmen jurisprudence and land acquisition disputes, the
Campaign notes the attitude of the judiciary as being dismal. The current judicial system is getting far removed from the needs and rights of the poor and deprived section of society in substantial deviation from the directive principles of state policy as enshrined in the Constitution of India and even restricting the interpretation “right to life” as delineated in earlier pronouncements of the court. In fact the common people have virtually no access to the judicial system being unable to afford lawyers and also often because the language of the court is alien to the culture. The security obsession of the superior courts is also preventing access even to visitors thus destroying the very concept of open courts. With the current technology is would be easily possible to video record and indeed web telecast court proceedings which must be started immediately.
Courts have often been used to execute the desires of the incumbent government even against the law. Thus jhuggis along the Yamuna Pushta were demolished on the orders of the court to pave the way for the common wealth games village and the Akshardham Temple , in violation of formal government policy.
The Courts have acted whimsically and arbitrarily on environmental matters and have often invoked environment to demolish jhuggis, displace forest dwellers, etc. However the same considerations have not prevented them from allowing the use of the same spaces for corporate interests. There is a clear need for the courts to strengthen and rationalise the systems of environmental appraisal and clearance. Environmental approval committees should be given statutory status and appointed in a transparent manner to represent particularly the interests of the concerned masses rather than “technical corporate or bureaucratic interests”. The statutory appellate authority should also be transparently appointed through the judicial appointments commission.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Memorandum to Union Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal
http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=03_02_2010_163_010&mode=undefined
http://www.theindiapost.com/2010/02/02/ministry-for-mens-welfare-on-the-lines-of\
-ncw-siff/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)