Family Forum / Parenting / Single Parents / February 2004

The pit keeps increasing,   just the majority of those not in IT turn a
blind eye until they fall in IT themsleves......which of course is too late.

The Anti-Father Police State

by Stephen Baskerville

Columnist Cathy Young is known for her even-handed attempts to cut
through the pretensions of both the left and right. She has also shown
considerable courage by delving into what for many journalists is a
no-go zone: divorce and fathers' rights.

So it is a little awkward to find myself cast as one of her combatants,
with my own views and others' whom I typify characterized as "extreme."
In the December issue of Reason magazine, Young sorts out, with her
customary balance, a debate between proponents of Clinton-Bush family
engineering schemes and those of us who take a more laissez-faire
attitude toward government intervention in family life.

Actually, it is not my positions that are extreme but my "rhetoric" -
specifically, the words I use to describe how government is
systematically destroying families and fathers. "Political speech and
writing are largely the defense of the indefensible," wrote George
Orwell. "Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism."
If my language seems direct, it may be because euphemism currently
obfuscates the most indefensible politics of our time.

That a writer as informed and astute as Young has difficulty grasping
the larger trend at work here validates Orwell's observation about the
power of language. Clichés about "divorce" and "custody" do not begin to
convey the civil liberties disaster taking place. We are facing
questions of who has primary authority over children, their parents or
the state, and whether the state's penal apparatus can seize control
over both the children and the private lives of citizens who have done
nothing wrong. Rephrased, the question is, Is there any private sphere
of life that remains off-limits to state intervention? Bryce Christensen
of Southern Utah University (and not a fathers' rights activist, extreme
or otherwise) has characterized fatherhood policies as creating a
"police state."

Developments in only the last few days amount to government admissions
of Christensen's charge. Under pressure from the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), a Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, judge has
just freed some 100 prisoners who had been incarcerated without due
process for allegedly failing to pay child support. The fathers were
sentenced with no notice given of their hearings and no opportunity to
obtain legal representation. Fathers relate that hearings typically last
between 30 seconds and two minutes, during which they are sentenced to
months in prison. ACLU lawyer Malia Brink says courts across
Pennsylvania routinely jail such men for civil contempt without proper
notice or in time for them to get lawyers. Lawrence County was
apparently jailing fathers with no hearings at all. Nothing indicates
that Pennsylvania is unusual. After a decade of hysteria over "deadbeat
dads," one hundred such prisoners in each of the America's 3,500
counties is by no means unlikely.

Also last week, a federal appeals court finally ruled unconstitutional
the Elizabeth Morgan Act, a textbook bill of attainder whereby Congress
legislatively separated father and child and "branded" as "a criminal
child abuser" a father against whom no evidence was ever presented.
"Congress violated the constitutional prohibition against bills of
attainder by singling out plaintiff for legislative punishment," the
court said. The very fact that a bill of attainder was used at all
indicates something truly extreme is taking place. Bills of attainder
are rare, draconian measures used for one purpose: to convict
politically those who cannot be convicted with evidence.

So do these decisions demonstrate that justice eventually prevails?
Hardly. In both cases, the damage is done. Foretich's daughter has been
irreparably robbed of her childhood and estranged from her father.
Moreover, millions of fathers continue to be permanently separated from
their children and presumed guilty, even when no evidence exists against
them.

The Pennsylvania men will fare worse. For many, the incarceration has
already cost them their jobs and thus their ability to pay future child
support. As a result, they will be returned to the penal system, from
which they are unlikely ever to escape. Permanently insolvent, they are
farmed out to trash companies and similar concerns, where they work
14-16 hour days. Most of their earnings are confiscated for child
support, the costs of their incarceration, and mandatory drug testing.

This gulag recalls the description of the Soviet forced-labor system,
described by Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski in their classic
study of totalitarianism: "Not infrequently the secret police hired out
its prisoners to local agencies for the purpose of carrying out some
local project.. Elaborate contracts were drawn up.specifying all the
details and setting the rates at which the secret police is to be paid.
At the conclusion of their task, the prisoners, or more correctly the
slaves, were returned to the custody of the secret police."

New repressive measures against fathers are enacted almost daily. Last
week, Staten Island joined a nationwide trend when it opened a new
"integrated domestic violence court." The purpose of these courts, says
Chief Judge Judith Kaye, is not to dispense justice as such but to "make
batterers and abusers take responsibility for their actions." In other
words, to declare men guilty.

Anyone who doubts this need only look to Canada, where domestic violence
courts are already empowered to seize the property, including the homes,
of men accused of domestic violence, even though they are not
necessarily convicted or even formally charged. Moreover, they may do so
"ex parte," without the men being present to defend themselves. "This
bill is classic police-state legislation," writes Robert Martin, of the
University of Western Ontario. Walter Fox, a Toronto lawyer, describes
these courts as "pre-fascist," and editor Dave Brown writes in the
Ottawa Citizen, "Domestic violence courts.are designed to get around the
protections of the Criminal Code. The burden of proof is reduced or
removed, and there's no presumption of innocence."

Special courts to try special crimes that can only be committed by
certain people are a familiar device totalitarian regimes adopted to
replace established standards of justice with ideological justice. New
courts created during the French Revolution led to the Reign of Terror
and were consciously imitated in the Soviet Union. In Hitler's dreaded
Volksgerichte or "people's courts," write Friedrich and Brzezinski,
"only expediency in terms of National Socialist standards served as a
basis for judgment."

Even more astounding, legislation announced in Britain will require the
police to consider fathers guilty of domestic violence, even after they
have been acquitted in court. Fathers found "not guilty" are to be kept
away from their children and treated as if they are guilty. As Melanie
Phillips writes in the Daily Mail, "This measure will destroy the very
concept of innocence itself."

These are only the most recent developments. Young herself has written
eloquently on the practice of extracting coerced confessions from
fathers like Massachusetts minister Harry Stewart. In Warren County,
Pennsylvania, fathers like Robert Pessia are told they will be jailed
unless they sign confessions stating, "I have physically and emotionally
battered my partner." The father must then describe the violence, even
if he insists he committed none. The documents require him to state, "I
am responsible for the violence I used. My behavior was not provoked."
Again, the words of Friedrich and Brzezinski are apposite: "Confessions
are the key to this psychic coercion. The inmate is subjected to a
constant barrage of propaganda and ever-repeated demands that he
'confess his sins,' that he 'admit his shame.'"

G.K. Chesterton argued that the most enduring check on government
tyranny is the family. Ideological correctness notwithstanding, little
imagination is required to comprehend that the household member most
likely to defend the family against the state is the father. Yet as
Margaret Mead once pointed out, the father is also the family's weakest
link. The easiest and surest way to destroy the family, therefore, is to
remove the father. Is it extreme to wonder if government is quietly
engaged in a search-and-destroy operation against the principal obstacle
to the expansion of its power?

December 23, 2003

Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D., [send him mail], teaches political science
at Howard University.

Copyright © 2003 Stephen Baskerville

No,   State Court opinions hod almost no value in other state courts unless
they have been challenged in Fed. court and upheld.

Low, as is for abuse.   The number one reason is women wanting to 'find
themselves' or wanting to move on etc.

No.

YAWN.....in other words you cannot refute the FACT that women have sole and
unilateral choices that they are not soley financially responsible for.

And ASSuming anything about me will just make you look foolish

YAWN......if you can't take the heat......................

Re: Hello, way long sorry.....  

Group: alt.support.single-parents Date: Thu, Feb 19, 2004, 11:55pm From:
paulfritzREMOVEME@voyager.net (Paul Fritz)

    Self serving bulllshit.

    More self serving bullshiit

Maybe if you "self served" yourself Mr. Pig
or used a condom ,You wouldn't be whining so much about having to
support your children, and you could stop losing sleep over all this.
What a miserable person, I no longer "wonder" about you .