Fathers Rights Activists Linked To Bomb Hoaxes

[Update - January 14, 2004: I would like to thank Ms. Lauren from feministe for nominating me in the expert category for the Koufax Awards at Wampum. Welcome to everyone who is reading my blog for the first time. You may access my entire "fathers' rights" category in the "categories" section, to the left on the sidebar.]

[I am submitting this post, which I wrote last week, to Carnival of the Vanities today. That's why it's appearing here.]

Why does Wendy McElroy make excuses for fathers' rights activists who have sent more than 60 hoax bombs to family court offices around Britain? These disturbing attacks "mark a huge escalation in the tactics of radical fathers' rights activists who complain that they suffer discrimination at the hands of the family courts system. The Observer has learnt that the elite anti-terrorist police group SO13 has now been brought in to investigate the hoax campaign amid fears of more serious attacks in the future."

Targets of the hoax bombs included "Colchester, Ipswich, Swansea, Cambridge, Wrexham, Middlesbrough and Mansfield. There was widespread disruption, including the evacuation of part of Colchester town centre. In Wrexham shops and local businesses were closed down as the bomb squad was brought in. Scotland Yard declined to comment on the incidents. 'We are investigating a series of suspect packages but we do not comment on hoaxes,' a spokesman said." The bomb scare was aimed at Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass). A Cafcass spokeswoman said that this "is an unacceptable and criminal activity which puts our staff and the families and children who visit our offices at risk and, understandably causes them distress."

McElroy warns her fathers' rights readers that "violence is the worst possible "strategy" for anyone who seeks social reform. It is not only immoral and illegal, it is also counter-productive to the cause being advocated. The first time an innocent human being is injured, a movement using violence loses all moral credibility; it also creates a justified backlash of anger from the public and repression from authorities."

She refuses to see that her fans in the fathers' rights movement have already condoned similarly violent behavior by the Australian Blackshirts, a group of about 300 male fathers' rights activists dressed in masks and paramilitary uniforms who were accused of "making threatening phone calls, giving out accusatory pamphlets and broadcasting allegations against women by megaphone." These women included their ex-wives. States Attorney Rob Hulls had warned the group's leader, John Abbott, "against the
distribution of abusive open letters, phantom phone calls and mysterious knocks on people's doors."

Hulls said that such "intimidatory and cowardly behaviour" was illegal.

No kidding. These men stalk and harass their ex-wives and other women.

Of course, these men claim that the courts are biased against fathers. Women file most often for divorce nowadays. John Abbott sees this as "evil. It is a sentiment that seeks to bypass the 1970s, when feminism first rocked the pillars of patriarchy. Then, women stayed home, and stayed in bad marriages. Now, they work and opt out of poor partnerships more frequently than do men. Some men, particularly those who are middle-aged and unskilled, have found this hard to accept. But, whereas many men's groups complain about it, the Blackshirts harass and intimidate."

The Blackshirts claim that they are only interested in preserving marriage. John Abbott feels he is "doing what needs to be
done to stop divorce and reclaim the status of marriage and family." Has it occurred to McElroy that the kind of abusive and destructive behavior these men have engaged in probably led to the end of their marriages in the first place? Here's an excerpt from an article describing the Blackshirts as witnessed by the child of one of their targets:

Sandra thought the amplified voice drifting into her kitchen came from the gelato vans that trundle along her suburban Melbourne street on Saturday mornings - until her son yelled, "There are men in masks outside." Seeing the four black-clad men, their faces hidden under caps and bandannas, Sandra spirited Peter to his room, dialed the police and yelled "I've got terrorists outside." But the police were already close by. The masked men had just paid a visit to Wendy, who lives in the same suburb, and officers had a copy of the letter one man was now reading through a megaphone while his companions distributed copies along Sandra's street. "Dear neighbor," the letter read, "Sandra has petitioned for divorce without reason, shamed her family and introduced an immoral stranger to her son. We the Blackshirts will not let those who corrupt children rest."

McElroy inferred that the fathers' rights group Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights (ANCPR) is a "temperate" voice. If that's the case, why did ANCPR founder Lowell Jaks blow off stalking and harassment of women engaged in by the Blackshirts? Rather than condemn the Blackshirts for harassing and stalking women, Jaks said that "what the government there, as well as the government here and in other so called "developed" countries don't seem to get is that people feel profoundly wronged when a contract is broken, and the person breaking the contract is rewarded while the person wishing to honor the contract is punished." Jaks minimized the "intimidatory and cowardly behavior" of the Blackshirts, saying "[m]any of you on this list [the ANCPR mailing list] would use the same terms to describe the threatening letters they regularly receive from child support enforcement agencies."

The obvious question: why the hell would these men "regularly receive" letters from child support enforcement agencies? Because they have not been paying child support, often for many months! These are not dads facing hard financial times who are unable to pay. These refuse to pay. They don't want to give the bitch one thin dime, and if they do, they want an accounting of every penny. Willful refusal to follow a court order to pay child support is what lands these guys in jail, if they end up there. It is a fathers' rights perpetrated myth that debtor's prisons are alive and well in America today, and that "beatdead dads" who cannot pay end up in jail.

Fathers Are Parents Too! also excuses the Blackshirts' violent behavior. Australian fathers' rights activists Lindsay Jackel sent several articles about the group to the FAPT mailing list, along with this comment: "The group is organised and in your face. They are Dads who have lost everything, have received no justice or fairness at the hand of a feminist (family and magistrates) court and legal (government) system (when they were taught in school that they would if innocent), have nothing to lose and are frustrated and angry. Their hopelessness has turned to despair and to depression. The Blackshirts offers them community and hope. John Abbott, their leader, is known to me. He is both angry and committed. He will not be deterred and, if necessary, will no doubt be prepared to be a "martyr" (jail) to the cause."

ANCPR and FAPT do not believe these men should be held responsible for their actions. They are "victims" of "the system." John Abbott is a "martyr." Blame the bitch, the feminazis, and the courts for supposedly driving away dads. That's why these women and their children are stalked with megaphones and hate mail. That's why court houses receive hoax bombs. McElroy described angry and violent fathers' rights activists as "revolutionaries," which means "they have given up on the possibility of reform and, so, wish to sweep the system away -- a process that does not require consent." Her message is that if dads aren't allowed to "be part of their children's lives," then we shouldn't be surprised that they may do things like make bomb threats. She blames women and the courts for male violence.

You are deluding yourself, Wendy. Men who engage in tactics like bomb hoaxes, stalking, abuse, and harassment are not interested in reform. Neither are men who keep their ex's in court in a never-ending churn of frivolous litigation. Neither are men who violate protective orders, claim their ex's have "parental alienation syndrome," blow off their own abusive behavior with cries of being falsely accused, refuse to pay child support or petition for joint physical custody hoping to lower their court order, and demand in court "equal parenting time" that they were not interested in while married to their children's mothers. They are abusive and sometimes violent control freaks who are angry that they are unable to have their unreasonable demands met. They are also not extremists within the movement. The use of intimidation by fathers' rights activists seems to be increasing. Some judges have seen their names and addresses posted to the Internet. The Equal Parenting Council has "named and shamed" several Cafcass officials on its web site. [Update below. Following action taken against EPC, it has removed the "name and shame" page from its web site, so I have removed the dead link to that page.] Men and fathers' rights organizations who minimize or condone these activities do not represent good dads. They certainly do not have the welfare of children in mind.

Update - January 14, 2003: Due to action Cafcass had taken action against the Equal Parenting Council for the "name and shame" page, that page has since been removed CHAIRMAN’S REPORT Contract extension: CAFCASS Chief Executive The Chairman confirmed that the announcement of the extension of the Chief Executive’s Contract to July 2004 had been made on 4th March 2003. Equal Parenting Council The Chair updated the Board on action he had taken following the recent ‘name and shame’ campaign published on the Equal Parenting Council website. Following contact with the Chairman of the Equal Parenting Council, that part of the site had been closed. An assurance had been given that the Equal Parenting Council would, in future, take more responsibility for moderating the site. The Equal Parenting Council had also disassociated itself from the violent and aggressive action taken by other groups representing fathers. The Chairman indicated that he would now want to wait a few days before writing to EPC inviting them to attend a future Board meeting.

Why does McElroy create excuses for these abusive jerks? Why does she side with fathers' rights activists who do not condemn abusive and violent behavior like stalking, sending hate mail, and creating hoax bombs? These men, angry that they do not get their way in court, resort to more abusive tactics, sometimes violence. And fathers' rights activists sympathize with them. Hold them up as heroes and "martyrs" for "the cause." As usual, it's the bitch's fault. If blaming her isn't enough, blame the court system that these men claim is biased against fathers.