|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Menwhile women are tasting thier own medicine, even members of the parlament, this is a letter to the Spanish Prime Minister:
Norwegian mother, former member of the Norwegian Parliament, arrested in Palma de Mallorca
Mr. Prime Minister, Dear Sir,
I, the undersigned, Ruby Harrold-Claesson, attorney-at-law and president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights - NCHR - For the Protection of Family Rights in the Nordic countries, am writing to you concerning the Norwegian mother, former member of the Norwegian Parliament, who has been arrested in Palma de Mallorca on charges of kidnapping her own two teenage children and demanded extradited by the Norwegian authorities.
I appeal to you Mr. Prime Minister, not to return the mother and her children to Norway. The reason for this request is very simple: The Norwegian government does not respect the right to private and family life that is guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Norwegian government has established institutions that constantly take children into care and place them in foster homes, far away from their loving and caring parents and relatives and with unreasonable restrictions on communication and visitation between these children and their families. These interventions into the children's and their families' lives have mostly been without just or even reasonable cause. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has found Norway guilty of violating the basic human rights of children and their parents, cf Johansen v. Norway.
In Norway today, we find that an important number of parents whose children have been threatened by the social services or have already been taken into public care, have taken their children and fled to Spain. All during last year and the beginning of this year, the Norwegian government has, via the Children's Ombudsman, made propaganda issues about their great concern for the Norwegian children whose parents have fled with them and who are currently residing in Spain. It should however be agreed, Mr. Prime Minister, that parents who can take the initiative to protect their children from the social services and flee to Spain in order to enjoy their " most sacred rights" ¹) to private and family life, are doing what is utterly incumbent on parents, that is to protect their offspring from danger.
¹) Dissenting opinion of European Court Judges Pettiti, Ruso and Matscher in the Case Olsson v. Sweden (No. 2), Application number 13441/87, Verdict 30 October 1992.
This Norwegian woman and mother in this issue is a doubtlessly a very competent person. She has been a member of the Norwegian Parliament during different periods and has also occupied different high-profile positions both on the local and the national scene. It seems highly incomprehensible that the Norwegian authorities demand to have her extradited after she and her children have lived in Spain for over two years. These youngsters, aged 13 and 16 years, especially the 16 year old, are fully capable to decide where they want to live and with whom. Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the child guarantees that "the views of the child be given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child." Such consideration is given to children's views in divorce and custody cases in Scandinavia but not to youngsters in custody cases where the state has decided to overtake the parents' responsibility, i.e. public care cases.
The Norwegian authorities are claiming to have better right to the children than their natural parents. However, the return of this mother and her two teenage children to the Norwegian authorities would constitute a violation of their right to private and family life that is guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention. It would also constitute a violation of their rights according to Article 2:2 of Protocol No. 4 of the said Convention.
I would therefore like to welcome you, Mr. Prime Minister, and the members of your government, to visit the NCHR's web site on the Internet, where we publish dozens of authentic stories of the social services taking children into care and the devastating effect this has had on the children and their parents and relatives. We publish in seven languages namely Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, English, French, German and Finnish. The URL to our web site is http://www.nkmr.org/. A click on the English, French, German and Finnish flags will bring you to those language sections.
Once again, I appeal to you, Mr. Prime Minister, not to return this mother and her children to the Norwegian authorities.
Thanking you in advance for your kind consideration.
Very truly yours,
Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Attorney-at-law
President of the NCHR
"The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has found Norway guilty of violating the basic human rights of children and their parents, cf Johansen v. Norway."
Really?, well this is done to men every day, every minute, in the western world.
Reverend Martin Niemoeller about Nazis
"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."
The swelling hysteria over ‘domestic violence’ appears fomented largely for similar ends. ‘All of this domestic violence industry is about trying to take children away from their fathers,’ writes Irish Times columnist John Waters. ‘When they've taken away the fathers, they'll take away the mothers.’
Smart guy, yep, but should men care about it?, no way!!, men do not have any reproductive rights, thus for men it is better that neither women have any, plus that way not only men will support children but women too, through taxes, and men will have some saying about rising children, through votes, i know not to much, but hey!!, much more than we have now.
Another wise man:
"The Women's movement is clearly destroying the west on a number of fronts, but especially this one. The are turning all men into a slave class of citizens. Western governments are literally waging war against Fathers & men based on a corupt feminist model of what laws should be "ordering" our society. As a result, IMO, men are ordered into the "slave order," for the rest of their natural born lives, while more and more privileges are offered women. "Equal Justice," "Equal Protection" "Equal Rights" under law do not exist for any man in the west today."
But guess who is next?, ........ right on, WOMEN, and afterall women consume much, much more than they produce, so there is no need to treat them like productive males, (soldiers, masons, factory workers, etc), after a couples of pregnancies most of them are redundant, useless member of society, so who knows what positions awaits them in the future brave new world.
More light:
"Current enforcement practice overturns centuries of common law precedent that a father could not be forced to pay for the stealing of his own children. “The duty of a father (now spouse) to support his children is based largely upon his right to their custody and control,” runs one court ruling typical of the age-old legal consensus. “A father has the right at Common Law to maintain his children in his own home, and he cannot be compelled against his will to do so elsewhere, unless he has refused or failed to provide for them where he lives” (Butler v. Commonwealth, 132.Va.609, 110 S.E. 868 [1922]). As recently as 1965, the Oregon Supreme Court held that “a husband whose wife left him without cause was not required to support his children living with her” and that “parents generally may decide, free from government supervision, at what level and by what means they will support their children” (qtd. in Harris, Waldrop, and Waldrop 1990, 711, 689).
Today, these precedents are ignored, so much so that a father becomes a “deadbeat” if he fails or refuses to surrender control of his children to the government hegemony.
It is hardly surprising that some fathers who have been through this ordeal eventually do disappear. Anyone who has been plundered, vilified, and incarcerated—all on the claim of supporting children who have been taken away from him through no fault of his own—will eventually reach the limits of his endurance.
One of the cornerstones of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the following: “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms”. However, each day millions of men across the world are condemned into bonded labour when their homes and children are confiscated and their wages are garnisheed and handed over to their female ex-partners who have left them. They can be ordered to work a certain number of days a year, a certain number of hours a day, at times in two or three jobs, their wages can be imputed upward to an unattainable level. If they cannot, for a reason or another, meet the orders they are thrown into a debtors’ prison. Untold number of men find that death by their own hand is the only way out. This, Dear Amnesty International, is the biggest scandal of our century.
Anyone says something about it?, ofcourse not, but we are supposed to be concern becouse a female has lost her children, probably one the ones that passed the very same laws that allows women and the State to sistematically steal men´s children, fuck off!!.
Take care!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Australia's Child Support Agency is grossly mismanaged and driving dads onto the dole queue, according to a new report.
The PIR Independent Research group report found many dads were opting out of the workforce because they faced the prospect of losing up to 62 per cent of their after-tax wages in child support payments.
As a result, the CSA system had driven up the unemployment rate for separated fathers to more than six times the national average, it said.
More than 70 per cent (221,375) of all unemployed men aged over 20 in Australia now pay child support.
With more separated dads on welfare, children now received less money than before the CSA was set up in 1988 - just over $48 a week then to about $36 a week now.
"PIR Independent Research has reached the conclusion that the child support scheme is the primary driver of unemployment in Australia," it said.
"On top of high income tax rates cutting in at low levels, separated fathers can be left with less than 20 cents in the dollar.
"This provides strong disincentives to work."
The report estimated that more than 1.26 million parents were wrapped up in the CSA system, with over $1.9 billion being paid in child support.
PIR head Richard Cruickshank said the company decided to compile the report, despite a lack of cooperation from CSA, to help all taxpayers realise the enormous problems and costs with the system.
Many children were now only receiving about $5 a week, the maximum parents paying child support have to hand over if they are unemployed.
The other major impact, he said, was that the government was paying out about $180 a week in welfare payments to unemployed parents paying child support instead of reaping the taxes they would have paid had they remained in the workforce.
The report said the formulas used by the CSA to calculate child support payments had serious flaws and accused the CSA of being grossly mismanaged.
Mr Cruickshank suggested both parents be forced to pay half the cost of raising their children.
"I think most fathers would like to pay for their children," Mr Cruickshank told AAP.
"But this is an escalating formula (used to calculate payments), it was never designed to be that way, it was designed to help needy children.
"But when what you earn increases, so does the amount you pay (in child support)."
The report found the cost of running the CSA, the increased welfare and lost productivity blew out to $5 billion in the 2002/03 financial year and forecast it would cost another $66 million over the next decade.
The government recently announced a child support taskforce to examine the CSA system. It is due to report in March.
© 2004 AAP
So forcing men into slave labor for having children is having two consecuences:
(1) Men are reluctant to become fathers.
Population collapse
(2) Men are working less or just not working at all.
Both predecible, would women want to have children or work if things would be the other way round?, anyways the good news is that women will have to work for a living, and work to support their children, soon there will be pressure to make them be "RESPONSIBLE", like in my country, where women that can not support themselves and their children lose custody of their children automatically, then those children are given to relatives, for example the father, aunts, grandfathers, etc, or eventually social services.
Just nature´s laws, women did want to serve and obey men anymore, good!! but now they must work for a living, no work, no food, they wanted to have custody of their children, good!!, but now they must support them, so far so good.
The legislators can rule out gravity or other nature laws, by the will remain, wether they like it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
