Civil Liability and Courts Bill 2004

national | crime and justice | news report

Sunday June 06, 2004 01:48

by Harry Rea - National Men's Council of Ireland

hrea at eircom dot net

It would appear that all orders made in the family circuit courts in the past five years are unsafe

One of the prime activities of the National Men’s Council of Ireland is to monitor, on behalf of parents, how legislation and social policy impacts on the family and marriage and in particular on children. The infamous 'In-Camera Rule' has once again come into focus.

The passing today of the Civil Liability and Courts Bill 2004 (given below) would appear, at first reading, to be aimed SPECIFICALLY at the claim made to the Courts Service et al by the National Men's Council of Ireland that Solicitors are not proper persons to be involved in Family Court hearings.

The Law Society are on record to us stating that they will not entertain complaints made against their members who acted in family law cases where the in-camera rule operated because evidence from the hearing could not be used in their defence.

Because the statute of limitations for claims made to the Law Society against the malpractice of their members is five years and the custom and practice in Family Law in the Circuit Courts is that the solicitor representing the applicant writes the Order and the solicitor representing the respondent "perfects" it, all without the Judge who made the orders ever seeing or verifying it, it follows that if there is no possibility of complaining against the AUTHORS of these orders ALL ORDERS MADE IN THE FAMILY CIRCUIT COURTS IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS ARE UNSAFE AND INVALID.

This bill appears to not cover the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964, so presumably the Judges in the District Courts were acting illegally by preventing fathers from bringing in witnesses or disclosing the proceedings to the press when there were applications made under this Act.

We must now ensure at every opportunity that the corruption of the system is witnessed and exposed and the evil practices that have flourished under the secrecy of the in-camera rule are at last eradicated.

We must also demand a proper inquiry into how the in-camera rule was allowed to exist for so long whilst everyone knew that its very purpose was to cover up the institutional corruption in the system.

Importantly this Bill fails to offer compensation for the thousands of fathers and their children who have been abused and neglected as a consequence of an inept system which denied them justice through negating the possibility of their cases being heard in public.

Civil Liability and Courts Bill 2004
Seanad Bill

Explanatory Memo

Section 31

provides for the amendment of the ‘in camera’ rule, as contained in certain statutes relating to family law, so as to allow the publication of reports of proceedings so long as the report does not contain any information which would identify the parties or any child to which the proceedings relate.

It further provides that nothing in any enactment prohibiting proceedings from being heard in public shall prevent the production of a document or the giving of information or evidence relating to such proceedings to a body or person conducting a hearing, inquiry etc. pursuant to statute.

This extends also to a body or person acting otherwise than under statute where the body or person is prescribed by order of the Minister.

In both situations, the body or person is prohibited from publishing the document, information or other material.

As initiated

31.-
(1) For the purposes of this section each of the following shall be a ‘relevant enactment’-

(a) section 2(1B) (inserted by section 20 of the Courts Act 1971) of the Legitimacy Act 1931;

(b) (b) section 45 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 5\ (in so far as it relates to matrimonial causes or matters, or minor matters);

(c) section 25 of the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act 1976;

(d) section 10 of the Act of 1976;

(e) section 36 of the Status of Children Act 1987;

(f) section 34 of the Act of 1989;

(g) section 33 of the Act of 1995;

(h) section 38 of the Act of 1995;

(i) section 38 of the Act of 1996;

(j) section 16 of the Domestic Violence Act 1996.

(2) Nothing contained in a relevant enactment shall operate to prohibit

(a) the preparation and publication of a report of proceedings to which the relevant enactment relates, or

(b)
(b) the publication of the decision of the court in such proceedings, provided that the report or judgment does not contain any information which would enable the parties to the proceedings or any child to which the proceedings relate to be identified.

(3) Nothing contained in an enactment that prohibits proceedings to which the enactment relates from being heard in public shall operate to prohibit the production of a document prepared for the purposes or in contemplation of such proceedings or given in evidence in such proceedings, to-

(a) a body or other person when it, or he or she, is performing functions under any enactment consisting of the conducting of a hearing, inquiry or investigation in relation to, or adjudicating on, any matter, or

(b) such body or other person as may be prescribed by order 35 made by the Minister, when the body or person concerned is performing functions consisting of the conducting of a hearing, inquiry or investigation in relation to, or adjudicating on, any matter as may be so prescribed.

(4) Nothing contained in an enactment that prohibits proceedings to which the enactment relates from being heard in public shall operate to prohibit the giving of information or evidence given in such proceedings to-

(c) a body or other person when it, or he or she, is performing functions under any enactment consisting of the conducting of a hearing, inquiry or investigation in relation to, or adjudicating on, any matter, or

(d) such body or other person as may be prescribed by order made by the Minister, when the body or person concerned is performing functions consisting of the conducting of a hearing, inquiry or investigation in relation to, or adjudicating on, any matter as may be so prescribed.

(5) A hearing, inquiry or investigation referred to in subsection (3) or (4) shall, in so far as it relates to a document referred to in subsection (3) or information or evidence referred to in subsection (4), be conducted otherwise than in public and no such document, information or evidence shall be published.

save preference

Comments (7 of 7)

An interesting agenda

by Jimmy

Sun Jun 06, 2004 16:39

Just in case anyone is tempted to take the above seriously, I would invite them to take a close look at the website that Harry so kindly links to. Particular attention should be paid to the sections on domestic violence (boo! evil feminists!) and one parent families (boo! evil social degeneracy!).

In short, these lads have a somewhat unusual and deeply reactionary social and political agenda. There is no harm in reading what they have to say, but you should be aware that women's liberation is not high up their list of priorities.

Bennis, et al

by stopthuggery

Sun Jun 06, 2004 17:20

Aye, they're some body of work all right. Seven men plus Nora Bennis, now there's a name that will be familiar to you all.

And they use five different fronts:
Family Matters
Separation Crisis
Family Men
Parents Fight Back
National Parent Teachers Alliance

Their whole agenda is the superiority of the male partner in marriage, and to attack any economic support given to one-parent families. They also appear to be right-wing catholics.
They also talk about the right of the father to "discipline" the family. That means the father should have the right to use violence on other family members.
They look to me like a bunch of bitter and twisted rejects who lost their families through their own fault.
.

I don't think that they are all Catholics.

Sun Jun 06, 2004 18:43

This is more a case of reactionaries putting aside their differences of creed and uniting around a common belief in patriarchy.

It's pretty unpleasant stuff. The family, in its nuclear version with an added twist of male dominance, is seen as the central unit in society. Other forms of family are inherently undesirable. Interference by society at large in the rights of the family is considered inherently undesirable. Feminism is considered to be a "scourge" of all that is right and decent.

It is interesting that these people should think of Indymedia as an outlet for their views. They aren't likely to get much of a welcome. If Harry or any of the other members of the self-declared "National Men's Council of Ireland" come back to read the responses to their article, I have a few questions I would like an answer to. Let's start with one.

Where does the NMCI stand on the issue of homosexuality?

The Ayatollahs

Sun Jun 06, 2004 19:29

No Jimmy, you're right, they are not all right wing catholics. I was reacting to the two letters that Harry Rea posted to their site. He did seem to be pushing a catholic line. Incidently they are the only letters on that site, it seems none of the other seven people (or anyone else, were bothered enough to write to their letters page).
It seems everyone else, the courts, the judiciary, the guards, the entire legal profession, and of course the feminist movement are out to get them, the poor things. Everyone else is wrong. Can you imagine if they ever got into power? It would be like Iran under the Ayatollahs!

Reply from National Men's Council of Ireland

by Roger Eldridge - National Men's Council of Ireland

Mon Jun 07, 2004 11:28

familymen at eircom dot net

Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon

071 96 67138

One of the tricks used by feminists who control the media is to use ad hominem attacks in an attempt to discredit the person and hope that what they are saying will be discredited too.

This of course is when they fail to use their number one weapon, that of censoring out all debate about the important issues.

If the indymedia site has any credibility and is not to be used as yet another mouthpiece for disseminating anti-marriage, antifamily, anti-Christian, anti-children, anti-democracy, anti-freedom propaganda, ie what feminism has become today, then it must allow for a proper debate on all the issues that affect the ordinary family men and women who the National Men's Council of Ireland represent.

A recent straw poll taken on the streets of our cities and rural towns revealed that 95% of both men and women, both under and over 40, employed or not stated that they either were married or hoped to be married in their lifetime.

One of the other tricks used by feminists who control the media, especially RTE is to bring on air legal 'experts' to discuss family law who then discuss unmarried fathers rights (they have none) as if they applied to all fathers and to never discuss the very different position of the married father.

The producers of the Marian Finucane used that trick last week and steadfastly refuse to allow members of the National Men's Council of Ireland or anyone on to outline the true position of married fathers and to explain how vitally important the male kinship system is for Ireland if it wants to be a civilised society.

This leaves married fathers (85% of children live with their married father) in the dark and has the desired effect of undermining their confidence and reducing their expectations of obtaining justice in any subsequent family law proceedings.

With almost all animals in the wild the mother assumes the role of nurturer to her offspring. Commonly the male of the species is superfluous to requirements once mating has occurred.

The genius of the patriarchal system that brought about what we call civilisation is that it put the mating drive of men and women to work for their children and for the good of society as a whole.

It made the father, the weakest link in family formation, the head of the family in marriage. It bound him to the mother and child and made him accountable for the family upkeep and safekeeping - their Custody.

It is what motivated men to outperform women. It is what caused married men to earn on average twice what single men earned. It is what causes a father to increase his income by 20% with each succeeding child born within his family.

Because his position is a social construct rather than a natural position like the mother, the father intuitively understands that his role is to socialise his children, to discipline them, ie instruct them in the laws and social mores - the advantages and disadvantages of living in a civilised society - so that both his sons and daughters know how to behave if they are to be accepted into society.

That was what men threw into the marriage hat. Women's contribution was much simpler. She just had to be chaste before marriage and faithful to her husband after marriage so that he could be sure that he was providing for and protecting his offspring only.

The great 'double standard' was that his faithfulness was nowhere near as important as hers. In return however she ENJOYED economic support from him (and still does!) and was given privileges in society (and still is!).

To support this 'artificial' position men devised laws to protect their role in the family and accumulated wealth so that their family and descendents might flourish from the prosperity and stability it ensured. The father was given authority over the family and was sovereign in his own household. He was a free man and as long as he was a good 'family man' the state could not interfere. A man's home is his castle.

Where patriarchy doesn't exist or it breaks down you have matriarchy - the law of nature, the law of the jungle - the modern form is seen in ghetto life where the mother controls her own sexuality - where she is free to be as promiscuous as she pleases and the father of each of her children has no function in her family, where he is treated at all times as an expendable boyfriend, where he is without motivation to perform or provide and where he has no incentive or secure right to act as a disciplinarian or role model to his children.

Any moves towards giving unmarried fathers 'rights' to merely 'see' their children does not support patriarchy and is of little long-term value to children. In fact it undermines marriage and moves us further towards matriarchy.

Ghetto life necessarily absorbs incest as part of 'normal' life because there are no distinct family lines. Children do not bear the fathers name so they can not know when they are breeding with their sister, or father or aunt or cousin. There is no distinct line of inheritance but probably nothing of substance to inherit anyway so ghetto people stay within the ghetto and there is no way of advancement. They exist on scraps thrown to them by the welfare state and so become mere slaves of the partnership between the state and multi-national corporations to do their bidding.

There is no grey area in this. One can not sit on the fence mincing words as if this was a game. BIG GOVERNMENT AND BIG BUSINESS WANT EVERYONE TO BE THEIR SLAVES.

We either support patriarchy, ie marriage, freedom, the rule of law and the male kinship system or we have matriarchy with its ghettoes, mob-rule justice by the media, incest and slavery.

The current system that we have where the patriarchal sector of society (married families) is subsidising the matriarchal sector (separated and unmarried mothers) through welfare and fathers paying 'child support' in a misguided attempt to be a 'good' father is about to end. A critical mass of men and women have finally seen what is going on and are pulling the plug.

Ireland has a patriarchal Constitution. It is based on the Common Law. It recognises and underpins the different social functions of mothers and fathers where the father has Custody of his children - a duty, in law, to provide for his family, but the mother does not.

As such there is no equality. Our current employment legislation and affirmative action policies for women based on so-called sex discrimination do not acknowledge these social functions and legal differences and so are invalid.

Despite this the state has been moving towards a matriarchal position without any authority to do so. Every treaty that has been signed with the EU or with the UN on the basis of equality or sex discrimination is unlawful and is an act of betrayal against the Constitution and the people.

Please take the time to visit our site www.family-men.com and read the documents there. Also please read "The Case for Father Custody" by DANIEL AMNEUS - ALTERNATIVE FAMILIES.
(available to download free from http://www.fathermag.com/news/3788-fathcustbook.shtml)

Roger Eldridge,
Chairman. National Men's Council of Ireland,
Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
www.family-men.com
Tel: 00 353 (0) 071-9667138 email: [email protected]

Dear Roger

Mon Jun 07, 2004 16:35

You will find that Indymedia is open to all kinds of opinion, short of the openly racist, sexist or homophobic. Such is the commitment to free speech on this site that the contributions from the self-proclaimed "National Men's Council of Ireland" have been left up despite arguably breaking the prohibition on sexist articles.

Nevertheless, that commitment to free speech includes a commitment to allowing others to respond to any articles posted here. You will find that the general response to your reactionary ideas in these parts will be hostile. There are very few contributors to the Indymedia site who long to return to a world where women knew their place. If you choose to post your ideas here, you should understand that others are free to attack those ideas here.

I am at least happy to see that your organisation is honest enough to admit that your aim is the strengthening of patriarchy. Most organisations with similar agendas to your own are rather more subtle in their statement of aims, preferring to keep their desire for male dominance discreetly under wraps.

Let me lay my cards on the table for you. I want no part of your fantasy of a return to female slavery. I want no part of your delusions that the state and the machinery of power are controlled by feminists. I want no part of your misogyny. Now have a pleasant day.

Thank you for not being one of those bigoted far left wingers

by Roger Eldridge

Mon Jun 07, 2004 20:05

Dear Jimmy

Thank you for not being one of those bigoted far left wingers who have no time for the people in the middle of the road like us despite us having, as you say, reactionary views. The vast majority of Irish people - the decent family men and women that we represent - say thank you for your tolerance.

However if you took the trouble to read the piece before describing the National Men's Council of Ireland as sexist you would have noted that we are merely pointing out the fact that it is the law in Ireland that is decidedly sexist. It reflects the different social functions that are enshrined in the Constitution.

You may not like it but we only ask why it is that feminists, who apparently are not sexist, have not sought to change the position where only men as fathers in marriage are liable for the protection and maintenance of their dependent wives and children and that women do not bear that burden.

We would have thought with all the political awareness that feminism has brought to you guys and your desperate need for 'equality' that you would have demanded at some time in the past forty years that women should be made at least equally liable.

But you never have. Perhaps you can explain to us all why that is so on this list.

It would appear that women have been used by the state and multinational corporations to undermine the security that marriage brought to every member of the family especially to the children and so leave the family members now isolated and vulnerable to whatever the state and their big business friends demand. This is called slavery. The apartheid system was not so much a racist issue as an anti-family slavery system.

The men were (still are I believe) sent away for 6 months at a time to work in the Diamond or Gold mines. The women and children were left behind (by order of the state) in the so-called 'Homelands'. Family life based on marriage was destroyed and all that was possible was the ghetto life of matriarchy where the men returned twice a year to inseminate the women to breed a new crop of slaves. That is why South Africa is the most dangerous place in the world. Because matriarchy was forced onto the blacks.

You might also illuminate us with your proposals for what sort of a society you would create (with your own money of course) as you hate patriarchy so much.

best wishes

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Civil Liability and Courts Bill 2004

Comments (7 of 7)