The Green Party of Canada believes in equality of potential between the sexes. It seems self-evident. Doesn't everyone believe this?
It came as a surprise to me that women's groups argue that in a divorce children should remain with the mother and that the father should be forced to pay financially; yet, men's groups argue that children should have the right of equal access to both parents. I did quite a bit of searching and this proves to be pretty much the rule. I was helped along in this matter by the fact that a full blown Senate investigation took place around this very issue so there was a plethora of submissions.
The primary recommendation was:
16.12 There shall be no preference in favour of either parent solely on the basis of that parent's gender;
Apparently this is a male-only view.
I'm male ... and the view seems perfectly sensible to me. However, female groups fought this idea tooth and nail. (Except for Real Women Canada)So much, in fact, that the federal government abandoned all pretense of reform. Another wasted Senate investigation.
The Senate does good work and the government stabs it in the back.
Looks like this posting has TWO issues: senate empowerment and child rights. I think I'll stick with ... child rights.
Why doesn't somebody sue the government on behalf of children who have been robbed of a parent. How about a class-action suit against the government on behalf of children?
Well, what do you know? Looky, clipping file (Calgary Herald, Sunday, July 25, 2004) to the rescue:
Lawsuit finds fault with winning custodyWe state disgust at loss of women's rights in other parts of the world yet men's and children's rights at home are deliberately suppressed. Doesn't anyone see the parallel?
Two Nova Scotians say they've launched a massive lawsuit against the federal government in an attempt to protect the rights of parents who lose custody of their children.
Connie Brauer and Vic Harris said in a news release this week they have filed a $900 billion lawsuit at the Federal Court of Canada in Nova Scotia, alleging Charter of Rights and Freedoms violations by the government.
In a fiercely worded release, they argue that when one parent loses custody of his or her children after a divorce, they lose all rights to be involved with the life of the child.
"All rights and freedoms are stripped from one parent, and all children, assets, income and parenting rights are given to the 'custodial' parent," the release says.
"The 'non-custodial' parents are now and forever a slave to the other parent and only useful for the purposes of paying large sums of money."
Brauer and Harris are members of Fathers 4 Justice (Canada), an international group promoting the custodial rights of fathers.
The pair say they've also filed a Crimes Against Humanities charge with the International Criminal Court at the Hague.
"The government is responsible for the destruction and devastation of millions of Canadian families," the release said, adding later, "Canada pretends to be a democracy while waging war against its own families."
This comment was placed (by me) on the GPC wiki, September 24, 2004. It stimulated zero (0) comment and discussion.
The Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on Custody and Access Report recommended that a child have equal access rights to both parents. I would suggest that the GPC endorse as first principle that a child must have equal access rights to both parents after a divorce unless and excepting there are extenuating circumstances.I suppose I should just stick to preserving the GPC view of empowerment through choice in health care. There simply are too many windmills at which to tilt without having to battle blatant sexism in family law.
the only women's groups i've known of (belonging to this generation / contemporary groups) that argue against equality in regard to child custody, are fundamentalist groups. Unfortunately. I'm certain that this is only because of whom and what I associate myself with, but I have spent a fair time working in the feminist community out west and none of the groups I've been affiliated would support regulating that "children belong with their mother" under any circumstances. All would advocate further involvement of fathers (and community) under healthy circumstances.
ReplyDeleteIt's tricky though, because the women's groups on 'the right' actually have more power now than the few org's remaining on 'the left'. They recieve higher funding and private investment - thus they have survived when even the federal status of women committee is merely a tolken web page and have rare bi-annual meetings. These groups share (in perspective) only their want for federal acknowledgement and measurement of unpaid work. Otherwise, they diverge in every other possible way.
So, while my view may be one of a person who has 'lived in a bubble' I can contest to witnessing that for each women's group that fights for equal equity, right to choice et al, there is one that announces that women have the right (aka obligation) to prioritize their work in the home with their children - and infer that this prioritizing is the very nature of women as a gender. New language and sassed up vocabulary, but same old, same old fundamentalism.
There is one other item of interst in this regard, and it is that over the past ten years there have been a number of court cases where the fathers have set against mothers whom have turned a new leaf in their choice of companionship (lesbians). Lawyers and feminist have risen against those challenges with the antic that, in part, the 'children belong with their mother'. Now with new ssm legislation, we are certain to see those antics change.
There is this whole new concept / generation of feminism (fighting like hell to reclaim the word after decades of subversion) coined the third wave. Of which, I can apparently be herded into. Look it up sometime for an interesting read on the inside-conflicts of the gender war. When your bored... why not?
This is a tiny part of a huge issue. There are many women's groups, "feminists", that claim to fight for women's rights. Yet, the vast majority of women are trying to swing the gender divide in their favour - equality doesn't come into the picture.
ReplyDeleteHow can we (women) demand equal wages and respect while we expect to have the door held and dinner paid for?
Personally, I like to think of myself as an "equalist". PEOPLE should be paid based on experience and training, maybe even proficiency. PEOPLE should be respected and allowed to share their ideas without ridicule. PEOPLE should be expected to take care of themselves financially, emotionally, spiritually and physically (not to say that PEOPLE can't accept support from other PEOPLE when the chips are down).
And last but not least; when two PEOPLE go for lunch, they should fight over the bill - it's much more fun anyway!
Interesting thoughts, all of them.
ReplyDeleteI was recently doing some research into Senator Cools, who claims to have been beaten by fellow Senators. Still, the story has not re-surfaced. Anyway, I know that she is viewed as an extremist in Ottawa for her views on Father's rights. If you are looking for a politician who has done some work on the issue, she seems like an interesting person, to say the least.
Also, one could argue about Father's rights from an educational perspective. I just graduated from University, and 60% of the student body is female. Women dominate every faculty and department save for engineering and some sciences. However, this is at the undergraduate level. There are usually fewer females at the graduate level, and this means that the majority of faculty (professors) will be males for the next little while.
Now, if more women are getting degrees than men, what are all these men doing? In Alberta, they work in the trades. It's seasonal work. In a divorce case, who do you think the courts will view as the best person to stick a child with? Mom's got a stable job.
That has probably been a good thing for women, but I think that fathers have rights and both should be involved in a little one's life, irrespective of their education or income.
Also, when there's more women with degrees, those degrees fetch less money in the marketplace. Women, from an economic perspective, should be trying to get into the trades. I think this is where the real feminists are working. They just go in and do the job as an equal. It's tough (there are still idiot males out there) but these women, for a lack of a better term 'have got balls'.
Herb, I think there was a study completed many years ago called “For the Children”, but I may be remembering the name wrong. I also think it recommended the automatic assumption of joint custody, more shared parenting (which differs from custody), fixed spousal support guidelines and punishment for false claims of abuse.
ReplyDeleteThe government continues to send it back for further investigation. It seems to be a political hot potato that few politicians are willing to touch. It may take a supreme court decision before anything is accomplished.
You kinda made me itch when you said this is a "male only" view. I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, though.
ReplyDeleteI think it'd be more accurate to say it's a fringe view. Less than pressure from women's groups - I think it's important that culturally women are still perceived as victims/nurturers and men as strong/agressors.
We just don't think of women very often as "the bad guy" - in a split dead-beat Dad's are often assumed, but who ever heard of a dead-beat Mom?
Of course, in a country where I think it's safe to say 100% of women have faced sexual harassment, and most outright abuse and molestation - or where one must outshine everyone to simply be treated equally in male-dominated settings. Well, no wonder we're seen as victims - but, that doesn't preclude us from being agressors as well, or prevent men from becomming victims.
As an aside, I bet if women were viewed as potential agressors, we'd see a significant decreased in harassment and more understanding for male victims.
From my own experience, growing up with an abusive mother - this sort of bias within society really hurts. My father never left - why? She promised to see him sent to jail for abusing her, she promised to take him for everything he owned and she promised he'd never see his children again. Threats she may not have been able to fulfill in whole, but I have no doubts she would have made enough good on them to ruin his life.
Or again, I am afraid this bias will cause my current partner will lose a significant amount of his income as he goes to finalize his divorce with his wife this upcomming month. (Why my SO is undivorced, BTW, has everything to do with limited resources, and being misinformed by officials that as an immigrant he could not obtain a Canadian divorce - something he discovered to be untrue many years after their separation, when his previous partner decided she'd rather take him for everything that he's worth - than work. Oi.)
Anyway, I'm not sure what my point is - other than that I'm a woman and this sort of thing makes me *really* upset. So, cheers for bringing it some extra attention.
*Right, woops. So nothing to do with adultery. :P
ReplyDeleteSomewhere in there I meant to mention, that most men I've talked about this with gave me surprisingly macho answers and seemed generaly unconcerned. "Pfft. That'll never happen to me, so why should I care."
ReplyDeleteGods - worst blogger ever! Forgive me, I'm new at this.
"You kinda made me itch when you said this is a "male only" view. I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, though."
ReplyDeleteThank you, Rachael, you are quite right. I don't speak fluent politically correct just yet.
I often wonder why situations are allowed to perpetuate themselves. I suppose now that we have SSM we can address other glaring rights anomalies.
Your point (in your blog) that Supreme Court sanctioned queue jumping in Quebec discriminates against the poor is an interesting one. Consumer-driven health care would resolve that.
Hey Aaron. Yes, Senator Cools was on the Senate/Commons Joint Committee. They (government) seem to have allowed minutia to get in their way of simply stating that children have a right to equal access. [Disguisting]women robbing children of this right in their court-assisted efforts to abuse presumably nasty men must be stopped. Men, on the other hand, go through elaborate due process in depriving access of a child to a woman -- for example, a drug addicted, homeless, or institutionalized woman.
ReplyDeleteI dont really see this as a battle between men and womens rights. Unfortunatly it has come to that on more than one occasion in a child custody hearing. What i find so sad is that in the midst of it all the one thing that is lost is the child's rights. A child has the right and deserves a healthy, loving mother and father. I have found many people hold the role of mother very high yet diminish the role a father plays. A father's role in his childs life is so very important. The effects of which last throughout that child's life. Statistically speaking, a female child who doesnt have a relationship with her father is more likely to go seeking that male love in other ways when she hits her teen years. That is just one of the many impacts the role of a father has, there are so many more. I keep hoping i will see the day when a child's rights take priority because, lets face it, they deserve better and we owe it to them.
ReplyDeleteNot Without My Children
ReplyDeleteIn the middle of civilized Europe, first decade of 21st century, mother and children being forcibly seperated. Children on a run, their only mistake to become baptized, Christians. German Government closing blind eyes. Who we are? Where are we going to? Is EU the same place that we been fighting for through ages? Every voice and opinion counts.
please visit us at: http://petition.germanasylum.de/WordPress