logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 
 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Activism
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Families
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Fatherhood
 Fatherlessness
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Feminism
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Health
 Help Lines for Men
 History
 Humour
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 Suicide
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 Links
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by
ChangeDetection

BADGE
 of
RECOGNITION

censored-stamp

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)

Back to:

Advice to Men
 
 

Mom and dad jailed for 12 months for protecting their children against the State


Who 'owns' the children?

By Roger Eldridge

2003 11 13

This is an important question in the light of the recent case in Britain [1] where a mother and father of four children have been jailed for 12 months, not for child abuse, but for asserting their right to rear their children contrary to the way the state dictates.

We are constantly given the excuse that the state is obliged to decide on the lives of children when the parents are in such conflict that they can not agree on the best course of action for the welfare of the children.

This is a very thin argument.

The reality is that the state induces one of the parents, usually the mother, with lucrative financial and social benefits, to petition the courts for them to decide in her favour with the help of state-funded legal aid despite both parents being plainly 'fit' and the father carrying out his duties to keep the children safe and provided for according to his means.

The argument is made even thinner where in this case there was plainly total agreement between the parents as to what they should do in the best interests of their children. It just didn't concur with what the state has planned for all our children.

If the couple had been found guilty of child abuse or neglect then all would agree that something had to be done to protect the children. However the only clue for their harsh treatment given by the media is that "the children were taken into care last year after regularly failing to attend school"

Parents are the primary educators of their children. It is parents who enlist and direct the state in how to assist them with this task through their representatives on the schools Board of Managements and by contributing towards the cost of the schooling system through taxation. If parents feel they can do a better job at home they are perfectly entitled to do that.

Similarly if parents feel that any school or state Institution is indoctrinating their children in a value system that they do not support or are harming them in any way they will surely be failing in their duty to provide for their children's welfare if they continue to send them to that school or Institution.

Home schooling is a fundamental right of parents.

The true desire of the state to control every aspect of our lives including our private and family life can be clearly seen with this judgment.

In former communist countries the workers were encouraged to 'invite' the state in to replace their so-called oppressors - the employers.

In the west women have been encouraged through feminism to 'invite' the state in to replace their so-called oppressors - their husbands.

It is no mere coincidence that the founders of feminism were deeply committed communists. [2, ...6]

We now know after a massive fifty year experiment that state-socialism/communism is a disaster in every way for the people. [7]

All western societies are now feminist. This means that the state decides what is in the best interests of our children and how they will be indoctrinated.

Any parent who opposes that dogma will be imprisoned.

Roger Eldridge,

Chairman. National Men's Council of Ireland,
Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
Tel: 00 353 (0) 79-67138
email: eldridgeandco@eircom.net

___________________

References:

  1. Parents jailed for snatching their children from care
    By Nick Britten
    (Filed: 12/09/2003)
    telegraph.co.uk

A couple who fled to Spain after taking their four children from the care of social services were jailed for 12 months each yesterday.
   Sharon Richards, 36, and Steven Hayward, 33, feared the children would be adopted and fled to a commune in southern Spain so that they could be together.  Full story

  1. Erin Pizzey, The Planned Destruction of the Family

  2. Walter H. Schneider, Betty Friedan and her lies

  3. Walter H. Schneider, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Feminism

  4. Marx and Engels, The Manifesto of the Communist Party (Jan. 1849)

  5. Karin Jaeckel, Germany Devours its Children (2000)
    Excerpt: Friedrich Engels and Simone de Beauvoir, the shining apostles of contemporary family politics

  6. Rebecca O'Neill, It's official, the experiment has failed — Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family, Sept. 2002, CIVITAS

See also:

White RoseThe White Rose
Thoughts are Free

__________________
Posted 2003 09 13