|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:19 PM May 19th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
This was definitely F4J. I just heard the founder on BBC radio being interviewed. The M.P. they had on the same interview claimed that F4J could now lose the support of Parliament after this.
F4J's response was that they could not count on Parliament anyway and this was one of their ways of pointing this out.
The MP then made the outrageous promise that this action had made him decide not to support any proposals that F4J might put forward.
I'm pretty staggered that an elected Member of Parliament could make a statement which is based on an emotive response to one incident rather than the actual issue itself. It's as though any argument the group have suddenly becomes null and void because of this.
It's funny that when a bunch of lesbians abseiled into the Parliament a few years ago and caused a huge row about gay rights, no one felt able to claim that gay rights issues had been set back because of this.
On the contrary, it apparently "highlighted" how important it was.
I guess though, this group (F4J)is primarily made up of straight white males........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:28 PM May 19th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I saw nothing on ABC news or NBC news on this matter but CBS news gave it a ten second blurb.
The man throwing the powder was identified only as "a protester". Excuse me, CBS but could you possibly be a little more VAUGE!??!
Not one mention that it was a men's rights activist. I believe that CBS intentionaly kept the man and his affiliation ambiguous. The media, in no way, wants us to know that men's rights activist even EXIST! Hence the ambiguity.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:56 AM May 24th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
"The man throwing the powder was identified only as "a protester".
Fox News on cable showed it and I think they said a Father's Rights group.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, this was a poorly chosen means of protest, particularly in a time when terrorist threats are real. A bloke in a Spiderman suit climbing a crane is not a threatening act, but throwing unknown substances in Parliament creates the wrong impression.
While there has been a lot of publicity stemming from this incident, it also creates a negative impression, and has been used by some people to say "these dads can't deserve access to children if they behave like that".
I think F4J was doing better with their old protests.
--
Evil Pundit of Doom!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Define 'doing better'
1) No change of the law apart from placebo type measures is proposed
2) Any publicity is good publicity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>Define 'doing better'
I think F4J was doing better by making slow but steady progress in bringing the public onside.
However, this action is likely to alienate people more than the older methods.
In any case, nothing is likely to bring about rapid change. It's going to be a slow, uphill battle whatever they do.
--
Evil Pundit of Doom!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article in the Telegraph is pretty encouraging:
Outlining their motivation for the incident in the House of Commons, Mr Davis, from Worthing, West Sussex, said: "It was never our intention to frighten anybody in the public or in the House. It was to draw attention to the evil family court system and the damage it is doing to our children, parents and grandparents in this country and to make this change happen.
"It's absolute child abuse to prevent a good parent from seeing their child and to try to turn that child away from that parent."
Mr Harrison, a businessman from Ashurst, West Sussex, described the moments before the incident in the Commons. "They were discussing Iraq and we waited for Mr Blair and Michael Howard to stop speaking because we knew it wasn't appropriate to the people in Iraq," he said.
"We waited for a time when they were joking about how the Government had done. That was when Ron stood up with a 'Justice 4 Children' banner and I threw flour with purple colouring."
--
Evil Pundit of Doom!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fathers 4 Justice is not about slow but steady progress. Groups like Families Need Fathers have been making slow but steady progress for 30 years, but nothing has changed. Fathers could be fobbed off for another 30 years.. Recently Ron Davis, one of the protesters, spoke to Tony Blair on a phone-inMr Blair was hosting an LBC programmein January as part of the Government's "Big Conversation" initiative. Mr Davis called in and explained that he had not seen his children for five years.
He was, he said, "one case in many thousands" of fathers who were desperate to see their children.
Mr Blair said he recognised the importance of the issue but pointed out that "nine out of 10 cases get sorted without all the bother".
The Prime Minister said he would take a closer look at the way courts were approaching such cases and write to him. But according to Davis's friends, when the letter came, Mr Davis felt "fobbed off ". That implies that Fathers 4 Justice have got lip service from the politicians, which is a feat, but that is all. Any non-violent, preferably funny, protest increases public awareness, without alienating them and the Prime Minister, not being that popular at the moment, a embarrassing attack on him is seen as amusing to a lot of people. It seems that appealing to the better nature of politicians doesn't work, but appealing to the better nature of people who can put pressure on the politicians does. To do this, the more publicity the better. It must increase until everyone's talking about it, and then the politicians will have to be seen to be doing something about it, and then finally something will be done.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
