Upcoming Events

International | Irish Social Forum

no events match your query!

New Events


no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

Spirit of Contradiction

offsite link The Party and the Ballot Box Sun Jul 14, 2019 22:24 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

offsite link On The Decline and Fall of The American Empire and Socialism Sat Jan 26, 2019 01:52 | S. Duncan

offsite link What is Dogmatism and Why Does It Matter? Wed Mar 21, 2018 08:10 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link The Case of Comrade Dallas Mon Mar 19, 2018 19:44 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link Review: Do Religions Evolve? Mon Aug 14, 2017 19:54 | Dara McHugh

Spirit of Contradiction >>

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link Oliver Callan: Back in his box

offsite link Elaine Byrne: Lacking moral courage to name names Anthony

offsite link Real democracies and referendums Anthony

offsite link Public Services Card: Some still forced to comply Anthony

offsite link Catholic Church: Dark influence still active Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

NAMA Wine Lake

offsite link Test ? 12 November 2018 Mon Nov 12, 2018 14:28 | namawinelake

offsite link Farewell from NWL Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake

offsite link Happy 70th Birthday, Michael Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake

offsite link Of the Week? Sat May 18, 2013 00:02 | namawinelake

offsite link Noonan denies IBRC legal fees loan approval to Paddy McKillen was in breach of E... Fri May 17, 2013 14:23 | namawinelake

NAMA Wine Lake >>

Children better off with married parents

category international | irish social forum | news report author Friday October 07, 2005 00:54author by Roger Eldridge - National Mens Council of Irelandauthor email familymen at eircom dot netauthor address Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommonauthor phone 07196-67138 Report this post to the editors

The furore surrounding the publication of research on parental versus institutional child care raises some interesting points other the ones that hit the headlines.

Everyone is acutely aware of the scandals of historical child abuse of children placed in institutional care by the state and that is partly why there exists today the LEGAL PRESUMPTION that a child's optimal welfare is to be found in the care of its MARRIED PARENTS acting jointly.

The presumption is based on the fact that these parents have subjected themselves to the regulation of marriage in the interests of the child and the good of society and concurs with the established social science evidence (which the authorities are now trying to conceal) which shows that, amongst all the different family permutations, significantly optimal outcomes for children can be predicted, in terms of health, educational achievement and social development, when they are brought up by their two married parents working together. A recent WHO report on children's health clearly showed this.

However, in the study by Penelope Leach, which can be downloaded for inspection from our website at www.family-men.com, there is no mention whatsoever of the marital status of the mothers of the children.

I must ask how any person who wants to be considered a reputable researcher can conduct and publish a report if their study does not acknowledge that marital status is THE major variable in the outcomes for children.

Because the effect of marital status is SO SIGNIFICANT it is not difficult to suppose that regardless of type of child caring arrangements employed children who are lucky enough to be born into a stable married family would fare significantly better.

This must make a complete nonsense of the study? Why is the variable of marital status not considered when it patently masks all other variables.

The answer is that the motive of feminist-state-funded research is to demonise and eradicate marriage by whatever lies and misrepresentation of the facts it can.

During an interview with Professor Belsky on the BBC we were told a listener phoned in with a question about the position regarding fathers as carers for children.

Prof Belsky did everything possible rather than answer the simple question. He twisted one way and then the other alluding to some difficulty in finding a representative sample of fathers and claiming men who looked after their children were in some way "strange".

What a load of twaddle. Obviously the good professor's own sympathies are being shown here rather than any academic prowess.

The answer to the listeners question is simply answered by Warren Farrell in his excellent book, "Father and Child Reunion".

In his book Farrell provides ample evidence that fathers are every bit as good as mothers at looking after children if obliged to. The research in fact shows that the outcomes for children, in terms of health, educational achievement and social development, are actually very slightly better when brought up by their fathers on their own rather than by the mother and father acting together and both these arrangements are statistically better than mothers acting on their own. Non-parental care is shown to be a total disaster.

Perhaps an important aspect of this that the professor could not quite utter is that the only class of fathers who are allowed to raise children on their own are husbands - either widowers or married men who do not want to be on their own but who have been deserted by their wives or where their wives have been shown to be unfit parents.

The point is that the question as to whether the father or mother is the better parent is a red herring - a typical ruse used by the feminist state for the past thirty years to foment a phoney war between men and women with the intention of dividing and ruling.

Obviously the ideal arrangement for children - and the one that the state is trying to eradicate, although it is obliged to support through every branch of government - is for them to be brought up in a stable married family with two parents exercising their complementary positions as husband and wife.

In this arrangement as long as there is one full-time parent caring at home, it is irrelevant which parent actually does it, or even if the child is looked after by someone else for a few hours whilst some pressing or part-time work is done.

However, if parents believe money is so important that they can't look after their own children themselves and voluntarily place them into full-time institutional child care, it is hard to see any difference between that situation and the state TAKING the children into care.

Roger Eldridge, Chairman. National Men's Council of Ireland, Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon Www.family-men.com Tel: 00 353 (0) 71-9667138 Email: familymen@eircom.net

Related Link: http://www.family-men.com
author by R.Isiblepublication date Fri Oct 07, 2005 01:01author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Is there something in the research that indicates what the concrete benefits of married parents are? Is it possible that these advantages could be provided by a caring society?

author by Stevepublication date Fri Oct 07, 2005 03:09author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Re the item on Penelope Leach's research:

Woman's Hour had an item on the Penelope Leach research re nurseries, mothers, etc. It was an interesting and typical treatment by this BBC programme that pulled her up for not including fathers, but this was for an ulterior motive!

The item was somewhat mischievous.

The research is about the problem of not having one-to-one care mainly provided by one person consistently who has a genuine care for the child, for children under two-and-a-half. Specifically the report attacks the idea of nursery childcare, where there are several very young children per carer, and where the care is interchangeable between several individuals, none of whom may have a sufficiently strong genuine care for the individual child. The report also attacks poorly chosen individual carers rather than the child's parent, such as au pairs with poor English. The point is that very young children need the consistent care of one genuinely caring individual for most of the day. Usually this will be the mother, though a well-chosen childminder will be better that group childcare.

The report does focus on mothers and does not mention fathers, and your report picked up on this. The report does not attack fathers and grandparents as they usually play a role in families: as carers of young children for part of the time. The issue is who cares for the very young child for most of every day.

Of course, there is a proportion of single parent households where that parent is the father, and indeed he will be able to provide the consistent care by a genuinely caring individual. So it is right that you pointed this out. Thus far this looks like one of those rare occasions when Woman's Hour surprisingly cleans up its act, but hiding behind 'gender neutrality' is a familiar 'gender feminist' ploy.

It is fascinating that you choose to attack on the front that you did. Presumably it was because you couldn't attack on the front that you would have preferred: to try to show that nursery care even for very young children is perfectly all right. Of course, this was the very notion that Leach's work completely undermines -- as does other research.

It would seem that you were after brownie points for 'gender neutrality' in a situation where this had no cost for your overall stance; or indeed contributed to it, because the line you chose to take masked the fact that the argument is lost re nursery care for very young children, and so you got yourselves out of having to discuss the real import of the research: that women who work while their child is very young are likely to be doing them damage.

It would have been refreshing if you had handled this item honestly and begun a genuine debate about working mothers with very young children now that the debate is unavoidable. That despite it being unavoidable you still chose to duck the issue is an indictment of your supposed public service role, and once again WH contravenes BBC Producers' Guidelines.

author by Feminist and proud of itpublication date Fri Oct 07, 2005 14:37author address Dublinauthor phone Report this post to the editors

Being someone who supports father's rights, I had a look at the National Men's Council website. It is nothing short of reactionary - wants to send us all back to the 1950s when women who fell pregnant outside of marriage had no choice but to marry and pay for that mistake for the rest of their lives - or go into a Magdalen Laundry. Just in case anyone accuses me of exaggerating, I'm pasting in below the introduction to the National Men's Council from the website.

"The National Men's Council of Ireland, in keeping with the Irish Constitution, extols the virtue and value of the two-parent, Marriage-based family as the foundation of society. We hold that Marriage can only be the union of one man and one woman and is intended to be life-long.

We decry unlicensed procreation and believe that the state and community should at all times promote and encourage the philosophy that sexual relations should be confined to lawful Marriage.

We trust in God, in rationality, in Bunreacht Na hÉireann and the Rule of Law."

"unlicensed procreation"!! No further comment necessary!!

author by John O'Driscollpublication date Fri Oct 07, 2005 15:45author email JODPRC at gmail dot comauthor address PR Chinaauthor phone Report this post to the editors

You might like to try the Men's Council of Ireland, Feminist & Proud of it.


The MCI is dedicated to the rights (or lack thereof) granted to lone fathers and separated/single fathers in Ireland.

It has - I infer - integrated the organisation known as AMEN, which has the stated mission of highlighting the equally serious problem of abused and battered men which exists in Ireland as throughout the Western world. It seeks a legal balancing of the rights of men and women both in the Irish Constitution and Irish family law.

It's quite a different entity from the one you quote, the NATIONAL Men's Council of Ireland. In fact, it appears where you saw that text is a website,


that purports to SUPPORT the National Men's Council of Ireland.

Reading through the website one sees it is not so much about asserting the rights of separated fathers and lone fathers (am one meself, several times, don't recommend it) as it is about instilling right wing US Christian values, a pro-Bush view and a patriarchal view of marriage.

I suspect it is a vehicle for far-right advocacy groups such as Youth Defence to promote their cause, albeit under the objectivity lent by the association with a putative "National Men's Council of Ireland". Which I've not yet come across.

Hope that's of help.

author by Badmanpublication date Fri Oct 07, 2005 16:07author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I am interested in acquiring a "procreation licence". If you let me know the postal addrss, fee and which bits of my anatomy to put in the photo, I will dispatch the application forthwith.

I'm also wondering whether the licence is internationally recognised, in particular in south east asia. Finally, have you considered offering a 'one free procreation' special offer for new licensees? I'm sure it would be very popular with the public and would greatly assist uptake.

Yours excitedly,

author by Good Girlpublication date Fri Oct 07, 2005 18:25author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Does anyone disagree that bringing another life into the world requires a little thought and consideration? That children prefer to have daily access to both their parents wherever possible? That they have a right to this as a consequence of their known preferences and are not just chattles or accessories to the adult lifestyle? The upset caused to children by divorce/separation is a given. This has been proven over and over again. Abuse, alcoholism, adultery etc are all worse for children, though, and there is a need to respect and support those who are lone parents and not to demonise or disrespect them. We don't yet have a sufficiently caring society in this regard and the attitudes of the NMC is in many respects very damaging to that possibility. There's no place for woman-hatred in a decent society.

If by 'licence' is meant that we can agree as a supprotive and mutually respectful community that we will not 'procreate' without due consideration for the child or our general circumstances, isn't this just a way of showing due regard for the child's best interests? Of protecting it from unnecessary developmental, emotional or psychological disadvantage from the outset? You don't have to be rich to have a child - just very careful about it.


author by Trevor Stokespublication date Fri Oct 07, 2005 19:36author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I find this debate most interesting.

Is it possible that there is even one intelligent person out there who really believes that society has improved for us human beings since the advent of the feminist controlled state?

Does anyone really believe that the destruction of Marriage is not actually a politically motivated tactic?

Even the most cursory glance at the internet verifies that Marriage works and that the attack on Marriage by the state, especially the Irish state, was in full flight but now everyone knows it stinks of ulterior agendas and profit making racketeers.

The game is up. The next few months will show who needs to duck & dive.

I found this on the net at


Check it out.

Why Marriage Matters for Children May 22, 2003
by Glenn T. Stanton

Does your marriage really matter to your children? Research says it does!

“The most essential sociocultural patterning of a newborn human organism is achieved by the family. It is the first and most efficient sculptor of human material, shaping the physical, behavioral, mental, moral and sociocultural characteristics of practically every individual. …From remotest past, married parents have been the most effective teachers of their children”.

Is someone really going to put there name to an argument against what is said on that site?

Related Link: http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/facts/a0028317.cfm
author by one intelligent human being..."my moment has come"publication date Fri Oct 07, 2005 20:10author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I've checked my databases and indices and atlases and even made polite inquiries at some of the more reputable diplomatic missions, there doesn't appear to be any, (refine) not a single, such state on the planet.
In fact there is only one state which approaches the strict gender quota requirements such a place would set, its the Vatican, and it went the other way.
You could indeed say, its diametrically opposed to the "feminist controlled state". & (conspiracy begins here) I have noticed that they play an active and not non-reimbursed rôle in the facilitation of marriage contracts, and (can this be true?) boast the largest copyrighted database of records of such contractual agreements in the world.

I'm impressed. Kathurlicks are getting political.
(((latest election 2006 countdown tip - don't vote for anyone who is kathurlick)))

author by Roger Eldridge - National Mens Council of Irelandpublication date Sat Oct 08, 2005 00:19author email familymen at eircom dot netauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

I would like to come back into what is developing into an intelligent and lively debate.

Please excuse any of the following if you understand it already but it is obvious from the comments from feminists, Badman and John in particular, that there exists an underlying ignorance of the real purpose and value to society that marriage performs.

An understanding of Marriage starts with the oldest story in the world - that of the wonder of human biology and of the miracle of conception and the birth of a child.

This requires a woman who is 'willing to receive' the seeds of creation from a man who is 'willing to give them' to her so that together in an act of mutual love they initiate a new life which, after a gestation period inside the woman, is born into the world as a newly formed baby needing love and care.

Especially at the point of birth, but also during the period of the pregnancy and breast-feeding, the woman is utterly vulnerable. She is emotionally all at sea and physically exhausted and not capable of providing shelter and sustenance for herself and the baby. They have to be looked after.

When a woman gives birth and the Father is not present the task of caring for her and the child falls on her family if they are agreeable. In the past, if they weren't we referred to her and the child as being a "burden on the parish".

In modern terms we now say that a Mother in this position is 'entitled' to welfare payments, this time from the State rather than the parish but in both instances she is cared for by money provided by the community at large and not by someone who is within the loving trinity of Father, Mother and child.

When a woman marries, her Husband relives the parish or State of that burden and takes on the liability himself to protect and provide for his Wife and any children they are blessed with.

Through his sacrificial love the Husband is able to provide a Family home situation for his Wife and children where all social science studies show they enjoy better health, more educational potential, more wealth, the most happiness and longevity of life than any other type of living arrangement! The children born to his wife take his surname, as they are now legally his duty to protect. It is also primarily his responsibility to instruct them in the ways and rules of society and because they bear his name he is judged as to whether they are turning out well and are a credit to him or not in his job of socialising them. If they commit any public offence it is him who is held accountable by the community and the law.

In order that he can properly carry out his duties the Husband must necessarily be given some authority within the Family hierarchy to do it. The State regards him as the public representative of the Family unit - as the head of the Family and promises, in the Constitution, not to interfere with his authority. This secures for the family a strong barrier to regulation of family life and family values by the State.

His position regarding the children is that in legal terminology we say he is held wholly accountable for their 'Custody" - their keeping and safe-keeping.

The foremost public function of marriage is to regulate procreation and avoid incest. The prohibitions are extensive and purposely discriminate against legitimising sexual intercourse within certain pairings.

For a society to flourish it must look to the procreation of the next generation.

To properly safeguard the health of its offspring society has to regulate who has sexual intercourse with who. The taboo of incest has served this function for hundreds of generations and this was codified in the 1835 Marriage Act which forbids certain blood relatives, step-relatives and relatives-in-law from getting Married ie from legitimately having sexual intercourse.

These restrictions are officially known as forbidden degrees of Relationship and all marriages after 1835, between persons within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity shall be absolutely null and void.

The law prohibits a man marrying his:

* Mother * Daughter * Sister * Father's mother * Mother's mother * Son's daughter * Daughter's daughter * Father's sister * Mother's sister * Brother's daughter * Sister's daughter * Father's daughter * Mother's daughter * Wife's daughter * Father's wife * Son's wife * Father's father's wife * Mother's father's wife * Wife's father's mother * Wife's mother's mother * Wife's son's daughter * Wife's daughter's daughter * Son's son's wife * Daughter's son's wife

The law prohibits a woman marrying her;

* Father * Son * Father's father * Mother's father * Son's son * Daughter's son * Brother * Father's brother * Mother's brother * Brother's son * Sister's son * Father's son * Mother's son * Former husband's son * Mother's husband * Former husband's father * Daughter's husband * Mother's mother's husband * Father's mother's husband * Husband's father's father * Husband's mother's father * Husband's son's son * Husband's daughter's son * Daughter's daughter's husband * Son's daughter's husband

When one sees the extent of this list of prohibited 'degrees' one understands more fully how the primary function of Marriage is to regulate procreation and therefore what an absurdity it is for people to promote the notion of Marriage between people of the same sex who patently can not procreate.

These people show their ignorance further by arguing that preventing people of the same sex from marrying is a form of discrimination against them. If their argument was to be accepted as having any merit then obviously the people who are prohibited from marrying at present, by these degrees of prohibition, should also be allowed to marry as they surely are far more discriminated against than same-sex couples because, being heterosexual pairings they at least have the biological capacity to procreate!

Our extensive inquiry into the law and outcomes for children and their parents leads us to require that the Constitution should ensure:

1. That Marriage be protected and defended from attack because it offers to children and adults the best arrangement for a satisfying stable Family life and provides the elemental structure required for a civilised society

2. That fault in Marriage carries a penalty because children hold their parents as role models

3. That the practice of unlicensed procreation be discouraged so as to encourage licensed procreation - Marriage.

4. That social policies, like tax and welfare codes, be geared to promote and benefit stable Families with children.

5. That parents are respected as the primary educators of their children with the state's function being confined to facilitating the parents' acting jointly over matters which affect the welfare of their children.

Related Link: http://www.family-men.com
author by John O'Driscollpublication date Sat Oct 08, 2005 08:25author address author phone Report this post to the editors


I wasn't planning to get into a debate on the merits and demerits of marriage, but simply rather to point out to the poster handled "Feminist and proud of it" that there appears to be another organisation called the Men's Council of Ireland (MCI), not to be confused with the National Men's Council of Ireland. (NMCI) . I am unaffiliated with either or any other organisation or group.

I did make some partisan comments about what I inferred to be the underlying metier of the NMCI or rather Familymen.com, the website from which Roger writes. So to clarify my own views, hard-formed as they are through experience and observation:

I do believe there to be a Christian, rightist, conservative tendency to the tone and content of the NMCI or rather the website Familymen.com and I said so partly because the National Women's Council of Ireland, which receives Irish goverment sponsorship, is not in any way comparable to the NMCI in its official status or its mission from what I can see.

Not passing critical comment on any political stance, but by contrast, the MCI does not appear to be politically or religiously affiliated in any way, and for that reason alone I thought the distinction between the two similarly named organisations worth highlighting.

It is not my intention to give personal offence unless I perceive prior personal offence being given me so Roger please take these and my previous remarks in that light.

I believe that a good marriage is the optimal environment to raise children in.

I also believe that a bad marriage is one of the worst environments to raise children in.

I believe that a child is best served with two loving parents who raise her, or if that is not an option, despite the best efforts of both, one loving parent and no other.

Both the MCI and the NMCI seem to agree that separated men/lone/single fathers get a very very raw deal in Ireland.

The MCI's stated raison d'etre however is not to decry lone parents and call for "licenced procreation" on the one hand, nor to attack the institution of marriage on the other.

The NMCI "decries unlicenced procreation" and calls for social policies to be enacted against such, if I construe Roger's arguments correctly.

I believe that the NMCI might therefore be supportive of the continuing raw deal afforded lone/single/separated fathers in Ireland, as a means of "discouraging" unlicenced procreation. I may be wrong.

The MCI recognises the reality that the numbers of separated/lone/single fathers in Ireland are and are increasing at a very high rate for whatever reason. This recognition is implicit and necessary IMO for the MCI to justify its own existence.

The MCI's objective (as I infer) is firstly to highlight and secondly to publicly resist the absolute gender imbalance currently extant in Irish Family Law ,and in the Irish Constitution moreover, which explicitly favours women, whether mothers or not, in terms of the legal protections afforded through marriage, and even more so throughout the breakup and ending of a marriage. This is not a political issue, but a reality.

Secondly, the MCI through its association with AMEN, takes on the enormous, hidden, "elephant in the room" of Irish society, and indeed all Western society. Which is that female domestic abusers of men proliferate to the same or equal extent that male domestic abusers of females do. This is neither a political issue. It is also a reality but IMO not necessarily mutually inclusive of the first issue. I don't propose to tackle that second issue further here.

For what it's worth, I've lived in PR China a long time and I have seen firsthand what open discrimination exists here against couples that are not married and have a child, or yet have a second or third child in breach of "the One Child Policy".

I boils down to in many cases a loss of all social entitlements, a punitive taxation resulting in a loss of two thirds to four fifths of one's income, and a policy of discrimination and exclusion against the child or children itself in every imaginable sense, from schooling to further education to political status to inheritance to health care and society's censure.


I would be interested to hear contradictory views to my statement below:

The act of getting married in Ireland today, if you are a man, involves incurring a level of personal financial, social, emotional, and physical risk many orders of magnitude greater than that faced if you are a woman.

As a man, if your marriage fails, regardless of the fault being equal on both sides or one, you stand to lose everything you have worked for both as a married couple and previously as a single person.

This loss is automatic, virtually guaranteed.

You WILL lose your house. You WILL lose custody of your children. You MAY lose all visiting rights. You WILL lose the vast proportion of your personal income. You WILL suffer enormous psychological pressure under the current adversarial system, no less than your wife will, but in your as a husband's case this will be compounded by the loss of your home, your children and your income.

This reality is driving male suicide figures through the roof in Ireland, if they had a roof, and causing untold grief, pain and misery to families and friends.

A husband can be evicted from his home without notice, simply on the word of his wife, who needs produce no proof of her allegations in taking an ex parte barring, protection or safety order application against him on grounds of her own unsubstantiated testimony.

The Courts are - understandably - too terrified to risk weighing a plea of domestic violence as being anything but a statement of fact to do other than grant the application to against the man in almost all cases. In the reverse scenario, much less weight is given to a man's testimony, indicated by the fact that only single-digit percentages of applications for barring, safety or protection orders are granted to men against women. This may have changed recently, but I'm unaware of it if so.

The wife will almost automatically in every case gain custody of the children, the family home, a large proportion of the husband's salary if not more commonly the vast proportion of it.

He may never have said a bad word to her in his life, he may never have lifted a hand to her, in fact, she may have beaten him up, subjected him to verbal tyranny and abuse, threatened him and/or the children, humiliated him, played psychological games that have undermined his sense of self so badly that he is left convinced he is somehow 100% to blame for the problems of the marriage, etc. etc.

None of that matters. He's a man. So in the eyes of the Irish legal system he must be the loser in the final outcome. Automatically.

It is not just a question of the best interests of the children IMO, although this vital central principle too much is used to justify hideously gender-partisan decisions by the Irish Courts.

Barristers and solicitors know this. Therefore many legal professionals will encourage the most aggressive, adversarial approach imaginable to the tragedy of marriage breakdown. To build up heat instead of light is seen as the best way to dispense with any lingering sentimentality on the wife's part and arrogate the maximum possible share of the combined assets of the coupe to her, as well as full guardianship and/or custody of the children.

Very often, the first a man learns that his marriage is over is when he receives a formal, often frightening communication from his wife's legal representatives informing him that she is seeking transfer of the entire family assets (i.e. the house and investments) into her sole ownership, full custody of the children, supervised access only for the father, the greater portion of all his pension entitlements, and so on.

This is guaranteed to cause the maximum levels of hardship, hostility, stress and emotional damage conceivable.

The MCI are seeking to highlight the injustice of this situation and the parallel issue of domestic abuse of men.

Even more apparent to me than the institutionalised injustice and bias in the Irish legal system that I mention, is the fact that to more and more men, the unacceptable level of personal risk incurred by getting married in Ireland today simply renders marriage a non-option, or a very very unattractive one.

And that's maybe a good idea for all the parties concerned. Marry in haste, repent at leisure is a very true old saw.

I believe no sane person gets married with the idea that they'll be getting divorced sooner or later. To do that would be utterly exploitative and a travesty of what marriage is supposed to mean in the modern sense i.e. a pledging of one's self and one's possessions to the service of another, and the pledge being made and sealed from love.

There are a lot of insane people who get married with no intention of getting divorced though, and no objective hope of remaining in that marriage for the long-term either.

The insanity I refer to may be temporary, but IMO it is insanity nonetheless. The insanity of powerful sexual attraction, or as the more biblical call it, "unbridled lust".

Romantic love is often confused with powerful sexual attraction. The first, IMO, is something that grows and endures under adversity, and regardless of differences or similarity between the couple, is ultimately based upon mutual respect, shared understandings and clearly demarcated personal boundaries, procreation, physical intimacy, the passage of time, the gaining of insight and wisdom.

Love, real love, has much less to do with physical or psycho-sexual/"chemical" attraction that it does with those factors I've listed.

Powerful sexual attraction is just what it says it is. Myriads of chemical, biological, psychological, visual-auditory-olfactory signals are triggered at the meeting of two sexually compatible people and *POW* they "fall in love". Wrong IMO. They fall in lust. Not love. And that can be great. So long as the relationship founded upon powerful sexual attraction also involves two people with the necessary characteristics to ultimately love each other. Not "fall in love". But "Love".

Powerful sexual attraction when combined with a psycho/emotional "need" to have someone else take control of and manage one's life, or to take control of and manage someone else's life, too often leads to disastrous marriages and the birth of children into those marriages.

Disastrous in the following order for the parties concerned:
The Kids
The Parents.

There's no way any child is better off in a household where Mother and Father are daily and nightly at each others' throats, verbally and/or physically. There's no way any child is better off in a household where Mother and Father barely communicate, or don't communicate at all.

Such children are IMO equally at risk from all the psychological ills that are commonly attributed to children of divorced and separated parents. Alienation, loneliness, lethargy, violence, passive and/or active aggression, timidity, ADHD, and ultimately failed marriages in their own adulthood.

Children in such circumstances are far better off if their parents separate, and continue their lives as co-parents, lovingly and responsibly rearing their children separately but together also.

Unfortunately, and speaking from thousands of Euros' worth of costs, and years of painful experience as a separated father myself, the Irish legal system does absolutely nothing to recognise fathers' custodial, guardianship and visitation rights when compared to the extent to which it recognises and prefers the mothers' primary custodial, guardianship and property rights.

Fathers can and do obtain joint custody rulings in their favour, as I have, even though precisely what joint custody is has yet to be properly defined. However, if the mother resists on spurious grounds then it will cost the father a fortune in money, time and grief to establish his rights in this regard.

He will find it extremely difficult to get any form of legal aid, she will obtain it as a matter of course regardless of her true financial circumstances in many cases IMO.

It would be far better IMO for a State-appointed mediation based system, as opposed to the adversarial legal model, to arbitrate between the parties and ultimately to supervise the equal division of assets, so as to ensure that both parents have a secure home from which to jointly raise their children, each with equal access and residential custody.

A guardian ad litem arrangement should accompany this, to ensure the best interests of the children are never compromised or misused as a lever between the parents.

In traditional, patriarchial societies today, marriage is frequently not "love" based either, but instead of sexual attraction, the choice is predicated upon considerations of material and social advantage, and in the better instances perhaps account is taken of the individuals in the couple's own personalities and their compatibility.

Such "Arranged marriages" involve third parties (parents, guardians) matchmaking two people into a marriage.

Instead of any attraction between the two who may not even have met nor know each other, their "elders and betters" weigh objective criteria e.g. personality type, education levels, dynastic succession, consolidation of patrimonies, parental friendships, allegiances and prior committments, financial considerations, class stratification, etc.

All impinge upon the pairing of an arranged marriage to such an extent as to make "romantic love" qua sexual attraction a redundant factor in the selection process.

The couple are expected to "grow in love" i.e. learn to love each other through the course of their marriage. There is some argument for this system.

Comparitive surveys seem to show a much lower breakup rate for arranged marriages than for marriages based solely upon the free choice of the individuals. Although that could as easily be said to be a result of societal models that encourage women (and men) to remain in abusive, dead, adulterous, sham marriages and risk terrible abuse, madness and even death, rather than incur the social stigma implied by divorce and separation.

Ironically, many marriages in the developed societies of the West are also based on pregnancy which results of powerful sexual attractions and not love. These may or may not succeed or fail, but there may also have been little choice on either party's behalf but to marry before the baby is born.

For all that, we live in a society where the rights of the individual to decide their own future are paramount, and IMO rightly so for reasons the world realised fully only sixty years ago, and remember much more clearly than we seem to recognise them as still extant and rising again in today's world.

When the rights of the individual to decide whom and when and if they wish to marry are curtailed, and/or the equal rights of both parties within the marriage are abridged, all other individual and social and human rights that we have come to know and value are similarly endangered.

Come over here and take a look. Or open your history books to 1938, Munich. If you got this far, thank you for reading.

author by Shipseapublication date Sat Oct 08, 2005 10:15author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Just to express appreciation to JOD for this really insightful essay on 'love' and marriage. It's really very bad of us women not to acknowledge more readily the difficulties and unfairness that many ordinary, non-abusive men are facing within the current legal situation. There is a taboo about this issue which needs to be smashed through. Women who have esacaped from or are struggling with abusive relationships should readily identify with these men. At the moment it seems as though one party regards the other as inimical. A mutually supportive approach might transform the situation?

One point I would have to challenge you on John, is that you mention ADHD as being a result of psychological or social pressure. A lot of people think this and other similar conditions are a result of bad parenting. This is not at all the case and it is a misconception that is driving the parents of such children to despair. These are neurological conditions - actual disabilities over which the parent has no control (outside of appropriate therapies which can help mitigate but will never remove the disability). To attribute them to bad parenting or broken marriages is the equivalent of attributing Down Syndrome or cerebral palsy to the same causes. ADHD etc are incredibly difficult and subtle disabilities to try to manage - either as a parent or as an affected individual and at the moment neither is given much quarter at all in Ireland because of a massive state of ignorance - professional, official and social. I know many parents who feel suicidal about the pressure they are under, not from the child or the disability but because of the near universal contempt which the meet with from society. Many, many marriages break down because of the unsustainable levels of pressure that parents are having to cope with and because of the humiliating and exhausting business of trying to find appropriate, informed help for their children. The prognosis for many such children is appalling in Ireland and prisons ar full of people whose conditions have never even been diagnosed or, if they have, are not acknowledged as the causative factor in anti-social behaviour. These outcomes are entirely preventable. I am sorry to have gone off message here but perhaps if I say that most of the affected people are boys/men it sort of brings us back to where you started. The state attitude to single young men is and always has been one of utter indifference in most western countries. They are routinely deemed the least deserving group in society and suicide rates among them are soaring. Men have a lot of power and influence, undoubted, but there is a down side to that and it is that no attention is paid to the social ills that they may suffer and which affect them adversely throughout their lives, in my view. Is this not the underscore to the specific issue that you raise?

author by John O'Driscollpublication date Sat Oct 08, 2005 13:22author email jodprc at gmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Shipsea, thanks for your correcting and clarifying my misapprehension that ADHD is a linked consequence of marital breakdown. I found some commentary further to the subject that does seem to underscore the issues I raised earlier, as you say.

The below link which I found after reading your comment is well worth reading. It seems to indicate that the pressures and traumas of family breakdown can produce symptoms in children which misleadingly are taken as ADHD. A particularly relevant extract as follows:

" The family law matters that walk in most attorneys' front doors-the domestic violence, restraining orders, child visitation and custody complaints-each have long and painful histories. The kids have lived these histories minute by minute, watching their families disintegrate. In fact, children are barometers of family tension, registering parental fears and rage and sadness better than the best meteorological instruments register the weather. Don't believe those highly educated, socially sophisticated parents who tell you they've kept the kids out of it. They may, indeed, have saved their children from the pain of outright alienation, abandonment and violence, but the kids still feel it. Sometimes silence is even louder than screaming.

These same family law matters are exactly the right circumstances in which to breed childhood depression, anxiety and anger, variously labeled Oppositional-Defiant Disorder, Intermittent Explosive Disorder and Conduct Disorder. These conditions, in turn, often cause a child to be disruptive, distracted and inattentive in the classroom, signs and symptoms most easily associated with ADHD.

Parents' denial of or simple wish to avoid facing a larger family or marital problem frequently compounds this misidentification. Many children are misdiagnosed with ADHD and inappropriately medicated because all involved have implicitly conspired to scapegoat that child rather than face the reality of the situation. Unfortunately for everyone, especially the stigmatized, medicated child, this strategy rarely succeeds in alleviating the family or marital issue at the root of the problem."

Related Link: http://healthyparent.com/adhd-divorce.html
author by elija & jeezabelpublication date Sat Oct 08, 2005 17:04author address author phone Report this post to the editors

poor kids brought up badly by their parents to marry early and repeat all the same mistakes and chant all the same mantras to another lot, except this time the kids have internet, telly, pop music, text messages, sexuality debates, gels & flavours, divorce and cheap flights to non kathurlick countries.

These must be bad times for the cuckold and no doubt about it. Accepted there are many people who faced with having married the wrong person, want assistance in affording any offspring the best.
& there are some represented by your organisation who think to stave off such bad choices by offering legal protection and homemaker wages and stuff like that. But you are so dismissive of those who grew up in your happy family hell homes and those women who just want the "man to go away".

A caring society which considers all children to be equal and affords them all equal resources and protections will help you men, not further compound your misery. Its never too late to find the right person for you. & your kids will perhaps respect your for it later on. Google for a website.

author by elijah and jeezebulpublication date Sat Oct 08, 2005 21:47author address author phone Report this post to the editors

you are not the first nor will you be the last who in satire and argot thinks to find intellectual advantage in vain. I enjoyed reading your "long" comment, it was couched in simpe english with little cryptic play on words or erudition.
My previous comment was "a silly one", i really only wanted to put "elijah and jeezebul" next to some articles which have been contributed on recently as they appear on the latest comments list.

I'd like to thank your for pointing out ( in your really long comment) the difference between two of the groups MCI and NMCI in Ireland who are attempting the launch of late of a political agenda which goes far beyond the personal experiences you describe. despite having failed on the very first hurdle of their belief systems, (paul ephesians) these anachronistic, apologists for a social reactionary cult have emerged in Ireland in contemporary Roman catholicism and elsewhere through fundamentalist christian evangelicalism. Their assault on what they term "feminism" will not help you or any man in your situation, or your experience (p.r.china) or the constant emancipation of future generations in Asia or Africa.

I wonder why don't you start a group, since you seem not be soiled by "christian selective scriptural ignorance".

I'm a mister too by the way.

author by Harry Rea - The National Men's Council of Irelandpublication date Sat Oct 08, 2005 23:24author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The information we in the National Men's Council of Ireland ( NMCI )provide in our reports is never conjecture or agenda based, we state the facts as they are presented to us. If those facts are disputable then we are open to correction.

We sign our names to any reports or observations we compile because we stand up for what we believe based on our studies and experience.

On a lot of occasions some twit tries to overshadow the details we provide with sarcasm and unintelligible drivel, much like your previous admission.

“My previous comment was "a silly one", i really only wanted to put "elijah and jeezebul" next to some articles which have been contributed on recently as they appear on the latest comments list”

Prove me wrong! Make some intelligent comment on our last observation. I’ve repeated it here for your attention.

Observations on
The Law relating to the Custody of Infants in Ireland

National Men’s Council of Ireland

The Law relating to the Custody of Infants in Ireland

The Common Law position that the Husband - the married Father - has the Original Lawful Full Protective Custody of his children pertains in Ireland today. Contrary to disinformation broadcast about the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964, it did not introduce as one of its provisions that Mothers be given an equal right to the Custody of the children of the Marriage. The Husband’s right and duty to maintain and protect the children of the Marriage is undisturbed by the Act or any other legislation.

It is quite clear from a thorough reading of the Guardianship of Infant’s Act, 1964 and with the clarity provided by an inspection of the debates in the Oireachtas which show the intention of the Act, that in the Republic of Ireland, Married Fathers – solely – retain the full Custody of the children of the family as their Protectors, Providers, Carers and Educators.

It is settled law that Married women in the Republic of Ireland have an equal right and duty to their Husbands as Nurturers, Carers and Educators of their children, but they do not have an equal right and duty of full Custodial responsibility in law to “keep” and “safe-keep” their children as Providers and Protectors.

This hierarchy of accountability in law as a form of management is necessary, as in all hierarchies, for the efficiency and safety that it confers on the Family as a group.

This is the “constitution and authority” referred to in Article 41 of Bunreacht Na hÉireann, where it states,

1. The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2. The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

Contrary to the propaganda spread by the state about there being “equality” in the family, the absence of a hierarchy in law would result in stalemate over all decision-making. This would be to the detriment of the institution as a whole and to the vulnerable members, the children, in particular.

The hierarchy of the family is as necessary to the good governance and well being of the family as it is in numerous other institutions where a similar hierarchy of accountability is present. No one would suggest that there should not be someone ultimately accountable for decision-making in government or in business or on board a ship.

Not having, in law, the automatic right OF Custody of their children the only course open for a Married Mother to secure any lawful authority to keep her children, against the will of the father, is to invoke the Jurisdiction of a competent Court of Law under subsection 11(2) of the 1964 Act, and she may be granted, at the discretion of the Court, the care and control of her children.

The marginal notes provided with the Guardianship of Infants Bill to members of the Oireachtas show that Part (A) of Subsection 11(2) re-enacts Section 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886. Sections 9 & 10 of that Act set out the Jurisdiction of the Court wherein it states that these matters must be heard in a Court of Chancery.

Section 5.

The court may, upon the application of the mother of any infant (who may apply without next friend) may make such order as it may think fit regarding the custody of such infant and the right of access thereto of either parent, having regard to the welfare of the infant, and to the conduct of the parents, and to the wishes as well of the mother as of the father, and may alter, vary, or discharge such order on the application of either parent, or after the death of either parent, of any guardian under this Act and in every case may make such order respecting the costs of the mother and the liability of the father for the same or otherwise as to costs as it may think just.

As indicated in the marginal notes in the Bill as passed by the Oireachtas, Section 18.2 of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 re-enacts Section 2 of the Custody of Infants Act 1873 wherein it states:

“No agreement contained in any separation deed made between the father and mother of an infant or infants shall be held to be invalid by reason only of its providing that the father of such infant or infants shall give up the custody or control thereof to the mother”.

The Explanatory Memorandum, which accompanies proposed Bills for the benefit of facilitating the understanding of and explaining the intent of the legislation to the Oireachtas, relating to this section states:

“Prior to this provision any agreement by which a father divested himself of the Custody of his children was at Common Law considered to be void.”

All legislation must be in conformity with the Bunreacht Na hÉireann, the Irish Constitution given to the people, the sovereign power in Ireland in 1937. Any legislation that is in conflict with Bunreacht Na hÉireann is considered repugnant to it and is invalid and is considered to have never been enacted.

Similarly all legislation must be in conformity with all other legislation otherwise they are in conflict and it would be impossible for the courts to adjudicate on.

The corollary of this is that all legislation enacted by the Oireachtas is presumed to be Constitutional and to not be in conflict with any other legislation already passed or amended legislation, which has not been repealed.

The statement that “The law that the Husband, the married Father has the Original Lawful Full Protective Custody of his children is still the position in Ireland” is further supported by the following legislation that the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 did not repeal on its enactment or in any way disturb or modify;

a) The Constitution of Ireland. 1937. Re. Article 41.2 wherein the mother is specifically excused the liability to maintain the family, one of the principle duties of Custodianship.

2 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2.2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

b) The Children Act 1908. The Custody in the definitions of that Act specified that

“as between father and mother, the [married] father shall not be deemed to have ceased to have the Custody of the child or young person by reason only that he has deserted, or otherwise does not reside with, the mother and child or young person”.

This is still the position at law today; see Section 18.2 of Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 above and The Children Act 2001, Section 245 (2)

For the purposes of this Part- (a) any person who is the parent or guardian of a child or who is legally liable to maintain a child shall be presumed to have the custody of the child, and, as between parents, one parent shall not be deemed to have ceased to have the custody of the child by reason only that he or she has deserted or does not reside with, the other parent and child, and

c) The 1886 Maintenance and Desertion Act, which provided reliefs for a Mother only to sue her husband for his failure to carry out his sole Custodial duty to Protect and Maintain the family. There was no corresponding provision for a Husband to sue his wife and this Act was not repealed by the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964; in fact the law on maintenance was not amended until the passing of the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act, in 1976.

This means that for a period of twelve years after the passage of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 the only legislation in place by which a spouse could sue for maintenance for themselves was the 1886 Act which only allowed for a wife to apply for maintenance. This shows that the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 did not in any meaningful or lawful way make provisions that wives would have the Custodial duty of maintaining their husbands. Even though the 1976 Act on its face appears to be gender neutral there is a presumption that it is not in conflict with the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 or the Constitution and therefore the provisions do not allow for a husband to sue his wife for his maintenance.

The additional proof that the Husband is the Custodian in law of the children of his marriage is that there is NO PROVISION under the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 or under any Civil law by which a Husband could question his wife’s fitness to hold a Full Custodial office. If the children of married parents were in the “joint custody” of those parents, as claimed by the State agencies, then the legislative law would have to provide for circumstances where a married Father could seek sole Custody of his children.

Further proof is given by the States‚ inability to produce an application form for subsection 11(2) of the Guardianship Act 1964, as it is obliged to do in order to conform with the District Court Rules. The existence of such a form would show that only the Mother could apply and would expose the true position regarding the Custody of children in the family.

Examination of the Explanatory Memorandum to subsection 11(3) of the Act of 1964 provides even more evidence of the position of the married Mother regarding the Custody of the children.

The Explanatory Memorandum describes the position in 1963 prior to the implementation of the Act:

“At present, a mother cannot seek the custody of her children without first leaving the family home. An order under
subsection (2) will not be binding while the parents reside together and will cease to have effect altogether if the parents live together for 3 months after it is made.”

It added,

“the proposed subsection 11(3) enables the court to make the necessary orders even where the parents reside together.”

However, Walsh J. in his Supreme Court judgement in B. v B.; 1970 went to the extent of denying the express purpose of subsection (3) when he stated:

“it is to be noted that it is only in the instance where they [mother and father] are not residing together that the question of the custody of the infant may be made the subject of an order.”

If the Courts were to have implemented Subsection (3) in its proper enacted manner the general public would have been left in no doubt that, even within an intact married Family, it is the Husband who alone has the real lawful Custody of the children.

The “custody” referred to by Walsh J. above is not Full Custody but the custody resulting from a Court order which merely relates to residence, day to day care and control of the child.

This effect of this ruling in the Supreme Court has cultivated the spread of confusion and misunderstanding over the true meaning of the term “Custody”, to purposely reduce it to mean “residency” or even just “possession”.

Court orders granting “full Custody” to any person are “conditional” orders on that person, ie. the Court has seized control of the family and the State has taken over from the Husband as manager of the family’s affairs and retains authority as supervisor in place of him. That freedom and independence, once taken, is not relinquished until the children have reached adulthood.

Society now has many misconceptions such as “joint custody” and “custody just means where the children live” and a Mother having “de facto custody” when in fact she has abducted the children. This is deliberate and is intended to alter the true meaning of the term “Custody” within the general population, thereby undermining the status of married Fathers, destroying their ability to protect their children and has resulted in the social devastation with which we are faced today.

The married Father’s Original Lawful Full Protective Custody of his children imposes on him the full responsibility to Keep his children well and safely. He also has full accountability for the behaviour of the child and therefore must ultimately have authority over and control of the child, even having regard to the joint rights and duties he holds with his wife. The rights and duties of parents in Article 42.1 of the Constitution are in matters of Education only. Had this Article been intended to disturb the position regarding the Custody of children it would have stated so.

Section 3 of the Guardianship of Infant’s Act, 1964 states;

Where in any proceedings before any court the custody, guardianship or upbringing of an infant, or the administration of any property belonging to or held on trust, for an infant, or the application of the income thereof, is in question, the court in deciding that question, shall regard the welfare of the infant as the first and paramount consideration.

In enacting this section the elected representatives in the Dáil, voted in favour of this section of the Bill being brought into legislation strictly on the basis of the statement given to the house by Minister for Justice, Charles Haughey wherein he stated that in the Tilson Case

“ the Supreme Court accepted the principle that the paramount consideration was the welfare of the infants concerned. In doing so it had full regard to Article 42 of the Constitution.”

However, the Husband in the Tilson case had forfeited, by desertion, his Lawful Custody of his children.

Interference by a Court with a married Father’s Original Lawful Full Protective Custody was not examined in the Tilson Case.

The Chancery Rules referred to in Section 3 of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964, are only applicable in Custody matters where that Custody is in question.

The phrase “in question” means in circumstances where two parties with an equal interest in the Custody of a child have a “difference” of opinion and cannot agree. The married Father’s Original Custody of his children cannot be brought “into question” by his wife because she does not have an equal responsibility to him in Law and she cannot, therefore, have a “difference” with him over the Full Custody of the children of the marriage. Nor is his Original Custody ever “in question” in the sense that is intended by Section 3 and these Chancery Rules cannot be applied whilst a Husband has not been found to be unfit to hold his office as Custodian of the Family.

In short, a Father’s Original Custody of his children cannot ever be “in question” - it is a Fact of Law. He may only forfeit it by his own misconduct. The State has no Jurisdiction to interfere in any way with an unimpeached Husband in the exercise of his duties.

This position in Law is entirely consistent with the Constitution of Ireland, Bunreacht na hÉireann, wherein it states in Article 42.5

“In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child”

The Custody of infants in a family founded on Marriage can not, therefore, be brought into question unless the Father has prior been shown to have failed physically or morally in his duty, or divested himself of his Custody. The infants are under his Protection and the State can not step in.

Furthermore, although Section 6 of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 recognises the right of Married mothers to dispose of the educational rights and duties they enjoy – under Article 42.1 of the Constitution – to a testamentary guardian to act jointly, upon their death, with their husband. It does not purport to provide that they hold or may dispose of the Original Full Custodial responsibilities that are the burden solely of a Husband under the Law – that is the Protection, Maintenance, Education of the child and the Management of the child’s estate.

It would appear from the report of the leading case, B v. B (Supreme Court, 24 April, 1970) that the Supreme Court did in fact claim Jurisdiction and applied the Chancery Rules in a case where the Court was of the opinion that the Father was a fit parent to have the Custody of his children.

It appears, from a reading of the record, that the Supreme Court did not protect the constitution and authority of that family, as is their obligation under Article 41.1.2 of the Constitution.

1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

The Husband in that case was found to be “a fit and proper person” to have the Custody of his children.

It is impossible to comprehend how the Courts claimed to have jurisdiction to interfere in any way with his Custody of his children. The Supreme Court did not dismiss his Wife’s claim to custody of the children as would appear to be the logical conclusion and instead endorsed the High Court‚ in exercising a jurisdiction to interfere with his Custody of his youngest son, dismissing his Appeal against the High Court Order granting his wife custody of that child.

The following matters regarding proceedings taken under Section 11 of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 reflect the purposeful confusion generated by the state in order to interfere with the married family.

Matters legitimately brought before the Court under section 11.1 of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 require the existence of a “difference” between married parents, which affect the welfare of the children. However, as we have shown, the Custodial situation can not be questioned under this provision of the Act because a Husband and a Wife under Irish law do not carry an equal burden of Custodial responsibility and therefore a difference in this aspect can not arise since the Mother is not in a position to challenge the Father’s superior rights.

A Court granting “Custody” in this way to a wife is acting entirely without jurisdiction unless the court finds the Husband impeached as the Married Father enjoys a Superior Jurisdiction to the Courts and the State.

The state through the courts has no right or authority under Irish law to obstruct an unimpeached Husband in exercising his full Custodial responsibilities to Protect and Provide for his children.

It should be noted that the District Court Rules relating to Custody and Guardianship specify that all applications and orders be made on the forms provided.

The form 58.18 exists in the format where it provides on the same sheet for both a married and an unmarried parent to apply for Custody – there is absolutely no need for this to be done except with the obvious intention of confusing the enormous difference in position and status between married and unmarried parents.

It is a device by which a Custody order can be made on foot of an 11(1) welfare application.

The device relies on the confusion purposely created by intermittently mixing and alternating deleteable options throughout the form involving married and unmarried persons applying under two entirely separate and different provisions of the ‘64 Act.

These are unrelatable and disparate provisions of the law and there is no legitimate reason to do so.

It is to be noted that every application and respective order form in the District Court (Custody & Guardianship) Rules, 1999 specifies in the heading exactly which Section and Subsection the application and order is being made under so that there can be no possible confusion.

The application form 58.17 however specifies in the heading that this form is to be used for an application under Section 11(1) or 11(4) whereas the form 58.18 to be used for making an order in respect of an application under Subsections 11(1) or 11(4) is merely headed “Section 11. - Order on question affecting welfare of children”, which is only relevant to Subsection 11(1).

On examination of the Act one is confronted with the glaring peculiarity of the use of words in Subsection 2 of Section 11 where it states that

“The court may by an order under this SECTION –

a) give such directions as it thinks proper regarding the custody of the infant and the right of access to the infant of his father or mother

b) order the father or mother to pay towards the maintenance of the infant such weekly or other periodical sum as, having regard to the means of the father or mother, the court considers reasonable.

If this use of the word “section” instead of “subsection” is deliberate, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that any application under section 11(1) regarding a difference on a question of any welfare matter whatsoever by a fit parent can be used by the court to claim jurisdiction so that they can interfere with the custody of the child. The courts err by interpreting this in exactly this way and this explains why the order form as stated above has been made deliberately misleading and confusing.

It is to be further noted that there is no form available for making an application under section 11.(2), which is a provision solely for married Mothers seeking care and control of their children.

The Custody of the infants is not properly in question for applications under Section 11(1). This is in fact the qualifying requirement for an application under this section since the applicant is not questioning the fitness of the respondent but is merely disagreeing with them over a welfare matter where they have an equal right and duty, thus requiring the direction of a competent adjudicator. The Court relies on the unimpeached character of both parents for their Jurisdiction under this provision. See Tilson (1951)

Other provisions exist for applications where the fitness of the parent or the Custody of the children is in question.

The court, under its own rules, is only allowed to act in opposition to a fit Husband’s will if and only when it was judicially satisfied that the welfare of the children required that his wishes should be overruled. (See Walsh J,; B v B)

The court has no jurisdiction to interfere with a fit Husband’s Lawful Custody.

The Constitution protects the Family.

The Republic of Ireland is an independent, sovereign nation, and a parliamentary democracy.

Bunreacht na hÉireann is the Constitution of the state. No law can be passed that contradicts the principles enshrined in Bunreacht na hÉireann.

The Constitution protects the People who are the sovereign power

Fundamentally, the 1937 Constitution of Ireland recognises that the greatest possible danger to the freedom and well-being of its people lies in interference by the State in the Family.

By observation of the breakdown of social structure by other Nations the People of Ireland were able to identify that the root cause of the problem was founded in the unfettered authority of the State.

It can come as no surprise, therefore, that Ireland’s Constitution is incompatible with many of the international Conventions at present in existence. This was the deliberate intention of the Family provisions of the Constitution and their sole purpose is to protect the Irish people from descending into the pit of moral and social chaos that has engulfed many other nations.

Successive Irish governments over the past forty years have betrayed the Irish people through the introduction of legislation repugnant to the Constitution and through signing, ratifying and implementing International Conventions, which are in conflict with the fundamental rights of Irish people.

“First of all, the Family stands as a bulwark against the State. It has been described as the greatest fortress of human liberty. All serious tyrannies have tried to undermine it”.
– Baroness Young in “Standing Up For The Family”

It is important to note the fundamental principles relating to the Family, which are recognised by the enactment of the Constitution.

1. The State no longer has the authority of the Crown of England. The people are no longer subjects of the King and are free persons and as citizens hold the sovereignty of the nation.

2. The Institution of Marriage must be protected by the State

41. 3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

3. The Family is an institution with its own Constitution and Authority. This is declared in Article 41.1

ARTICLE 41 1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

From the debates on the Constitution 2 June 1937, there can be no doubt as to the proper interpretation of Article 41.1

Mr. McDermot: “There is one question I would like to put to the President: what is the meaning of sub-section 2º of Section 1: “The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority...” What does ’authority’ mean? Does it mean the authority of the head of the Family over the Family? If it does not mean that, what alternative meaning is there?”

President de Valera: The President: “It is the authority of the heads of the Family over their children, their right to look after their education and not to be interfered with by another authority in the State except for reasons that would be mentioned; that is to say where there was failure or neglect on their part to provide for the children, or, from the social point of view, failure to see that the children received a proper education. The Family have rights antecedent to and superior to all positive law, and any interference with the authority of the head of the Family will have to be justified on certain grounds. That is the authority that is referred to there.”

4. The only grounds on which the State can interfere with the Authority of the Family are stated in and controlled by Article 42.5.,

“In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child”.

The Family has inalienable and imprescriptible rights derived from God which can not be invaded by the State.

President De Valera continues to define exactly what is meant by Article 41 in the debates on the Constitution 2 June 1937

“The President: ... The inalienable and imprescriptible rights are the rights to look after the maintenance and control of the children .... We want to stress the fact that these inalienable and imprescriptible rights cannot be invaded by the State.”

“Article 41 put and agreed to.”

The existence of this record from the Dail debates ensures that no other interpretation can be placed upon Article 41.1 unless it is amended by a referendum of the people.

Articles 46 and 47 of Bunreacht Na hÉireann provide for this mechanism of amendment

46.1. Any provision of this Constitution may be amended, whether by way of variation, addition, or repeal, in the manner provided by this Article.

2. Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution shall be initiated in Dáil Éireann as a Bill, and shall upon having been passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, be submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people in accordance with the law for the time being in force relating to the Referendum.

47.1. Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall, for the purpose of Article 46 of this Constitution, be held to have been approved by the people, if, upon having been so submitted, a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum shall have been cast in favour of its enactment into law.

The Constitution can not be changed or interpreted differently by any other means.

5. The Family’s Constitution is hierarchical - this is essential for the protection of the Family from external forces. It has by necessity, like all institutions, a hierarchical structure for its efficient management, its safety in emergencies and for its general well-being.

In England in 1925 the Lord Chancellor made clear the opposition to the idea of joint equal guardianship, which the promoters of a Bill had put forward, and the English Parliament rejected the idea as being detrimental to Married Family harmony

Objections, stressed by the Lord Chancellor, to parents holding equal guardianship were that,

“[the] net result of the Bill would be to substitute a legal for a domestic forum in every household ... “that to put Mothers on an equal footing with Fathers in all matters concerning their children would simply produce deadlock”; that although woman “has almost the same status as man, she has not altogether the same status because it is necessary to preserve the Family as a unit and if you have a unit you must have a head.”

In 1937 the head of the Family institution was acknowledged to be the Father. His Authority and position was recognised by the courts in the matter of N.P. an infant [1943] 78 I.L.T.R. 32[HE]

“the Father is the head of the household and is liable to contribute to the cost of maintenance of his Wife and Family. [and in the matter of custody] if the circumstances show that he has not disentitled himself I rather lean in favour of conceding to him a greater claim than to the Mother”

The Constitution of the Family has not changed and can only be changed by referendum of the people. At the present day the Father is held to be head of the Family.

6. In exercising his Authority in his position as head of the Family he must respect his Wife’s rights and implement any agreement he makes with her regarding the children’s education.

7. Authority within the Family is transferred hierarchically, under certain circumstances (such as death or failure), from the Father to the Mother and so on through the available relatives.

Despite the father being recognised in the Constitution as head of the family and as having authority this is not made explicit in the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 so that it might assist him to exercise his duty to maintain and protect his Family.

Instead the state through the courts uses this position against him under cover of the ‘in-camera’ rule which prevents justice from being seen to be done, one of the maxims of law.

Thus the position of a Married Father vested with the authority to protect his Family from the State puts him in the front line of attack from the very State that is pledged in the Constitution to not interfere with his Family and protect his Marriage from attack.

The result of these secret laws implemented in secret courts, which persecute good men and deprive honest women of their real rights, is that thousands upon thousands of Families have been dismantled without any regard to their Constitutional rights, thousands of children have been deprived of the love, protection and guidance of their Fathers, who themselves have been stripped of their children, their homes, condemned to destitution, debt-bonded slavery and driven to desperate acts – many taking their own lives in utter despair.

This is an incalculable atrocity perpetrated upon the Irish nation.

As well as protecting the people from state interference, the Constitution is mandated to guarantee freedom of worship, freedom of the press, economic liberty, the rule of law, and the limitation of power through a whole series of checks and balances. It is therefore necessary to understand that those in positions of authority who act to derail Bunreacht na hÉireann unlawfully are violating the Constitution and are plainly acting contrary to the Common Good and as such their acts are arguably seditious.

“An intellectual commits treason against humanity when he or she propagandises for ideas, which lend themselves to the use of tyrants and terrorists”. Eric Raymond

The evidence is mounting as to who is responsible for the violation of the Constitutionally protected Family.

When we contemplate the destruction of the stability and security of family life created by the corrupted Family Law regime and State policies we can no longer disregard the reports of the victims of this vast self-serving racket.

Analyses by the National Mens Council of Ireland show this baseless and destructive ideology is motivated by nothing other than a raw lust for money and power over the People.

We believe it is the duty of all citizens who trust in God and who must owe their allegiance to the Common Good to ensure that the perpetrators of these attempts to violate the Constitution be exposed and their transgressions reversed so that we can return to a decent civilised society where children can be safe within their family and we can all once more look forward to a secure future of hope and joy.

Harry Rea

Related Link: http://www.family-men.com
author by jeezabel & elijahpublication date Sat Oct 08, 2005 23:53author address author phone Report this post to the editors

You managed to cut and paste all that without the use of capitals or any references to Paul's letter to the ephesians.
Thus deftly avoiding (unlike your fellow group acitivist Mr Eldridge) any historical cultural or social justification for your definition of the institution of marriage beyond the positive law clause of An Bunreacht the constitution of Eire in 1937.

You have now dropped "ephesians" and replaced it with the 1937 text of a constitution of somewhere people don't send postcards anymore "eire", and brought your test cases which you do qoute well up to Haughey's term as minister of justice.

We'll have you in the 21st century yet and sitting and ruling next to the girls and no doubt.

You do have a serious message.
& that is equal access and custody of children to their parents.

But for the moment you have not argued why your idea of what rights exist for parent or child are different be the couple dating, married, seperated or divorced. & thats the problem. Ireland did not to qoute you "By observation of the breakdown of social structure by other Nations the People of Ireland were able to identify that the root cause of the problem was founded in the unfettered authority of the State".
That is not how the constitution was written Mr Rea, and you too Mr Eldridge in the background. {I can smell you}
And it is not how the next constitution will be written.

You are rather arguing the personal problems of a small minority of men in Ireland and doing so with constant references to even more minority held "religious notions" and not in the interest of all those with whom you share those problems, yet it is your group that uses the "national" rhetoric.

Can you understand that?

author by Harry Reapublication date Sun Oct 09, 2005 20:32author email hrea at eircom dot netauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

My uncle Ned always told me, 'It is pointless to have a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed.'
So lets try to get back to the point.

Perhaps you are the last to notice, but the Irish ‘powers that be’ and their allies in various so-called Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) are ignoring our Constitution and in so doing, our people’s laws have been eroded to the extent that they are practically meaningless when it comes to the actual status of our Constitution and it’s authority over the law and the lawmakers. The confidence of the Irish public is shattered;

Without the Constitutional authority of the people there is no law in a republic such as ours, no foundation for our society. This fact of life is now public knowledge. Our State operates its hidden court system and twisted agenda in total conflict of interest to the people.

Meanwhile, their ‘set-up’ special interest groups ‘clean-up’ while doing the states dirty work and perpetrate their fraud under the protection of their financing state agencies. Other parties are ever increasing their activities in support of the tyranny of the State, take solicitors for example, and nowhere through all this are the media to be found, not a word in the papers, while television and radio stations no longer hide their contempt for Bunreacht na hÉireann. The newspapers will not expose any of these core issues of State totalitarianism that must be raised to highlight how statutory fraud is in process.

Lets refer to Irish solicitors. I read recently that: The Irish Independent reports that Ireland's top five law firms are raking in combined annual fees totalling €250m, according to estimates produced for the first time by a British legal publication 'The Lawyer'.

The Irish legal market is described as "one of the most vibrant and wealthy legal markets in the world". The average equity partner's pay package at all five firms is over €500,000, according to the estimates.

The article also claims that the profits of the leading Irish firms are "notably better" than mid-size London firms.

'The Lawyer' article states that partners at Ireland's leading firms are "notoriously tight-lipped about the revenues and profits their firms generate".

They make their money supposedly while working under the Authority of Bunreacht na hÉireann and yet not one of them has defended it during this time of onslaught. In fact it seems to me that it is because the Irish people’s constitutional protections are being ignored is exactly what is causing this feeding frenzy! It could be said that our professional law keepers are running away with the bounty.

As far as the Married family is concerned, it is obvious from the actions of the court so far, that their line of attack is that they plan to dismiss the claims of the people, saying there is no 'injured party" from the issuance of properly formed Marriage contracts that are broken. There is no mention of the Marriage vow violations, along with the incredible usurpation of constitutional process that protect Marriage, which is tantamount to the States violations of the public trust. The court will shortly try: "gays are equal, we will acknowledge it or it violates the constitution" all the while their whole process and statutory foundation is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, void of law, and unenforceable.

This is also disingenuous, because along with the children of unmarried parents, children of Married parents who have Constitutional protection and their property is seized every day with no one charged with any crime - no injured party.... again, the double standard is evident whenever a socialist or state agenda is on the line.

Suddenly these rogue legal practitioners themselves use words like "Constitutional" although they care not about anyone's rights... only their own special interests, here and in all facets of the Irish family court policy, the People here are being ‘Statutorily Raped’ with hidden agendas that on the face are presented as domestic violence policies etc. etc. although domestic violence within marriage is actually miniscule when compared to all other areas, and through this licenses the State takes total control and shoved their uncalled for programmes down our throats.

It seems that no legal practitioner is allowed to bring up any Constitutional core issues in a courtroom today, they do not, they will not, and I could well believe that they could be disbarred if they try.

Do NOT believe anything different, or you believe illusion, deception and lies that they designed for you to believe... appearance of law, colour of law, quasi-law - TOTAL FRAUD.

At this time all those other than Married people, such as people with same sex attraction and lone parents, are claiming "Constitutional rights", and for the state to "give them rights", ALL TOTALLY in violation of constitutional judicial due process.

Rights come from our Creator alone and this is enshrined in the preamble to Bunreacht na hÉireann. Rights do NOT come from legislature or the courts - these who would amend and abolish the Constitutions authority over law pretend to have no idea that the constitution "gives" NO RIGHTS but simply acknowledges them, and above all else the Constitution RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT or is supposed to....

We are seeing here unbelievable tyranny - we have watched it for some years, but we now see them acting in broad daylight, with impunity, in contempt for all that is intended for the Common Good and reasonable people in the state of Ireland.

My personal opinion is that this is the hidden agenda and a plan for the "New Community", state driven, above the peoples control, with their own tax base and, intended to outweigh our Constitution, They are controlling the lives of all Irish citizens through this feminist organised subversion of power, largely funded by their nucleus of militant lesbians and gays in state offices, but then the "gay" part is intended to be divisive, to throw everyone off while the takeover is completed in secret, mostly already in place.

To me this non-consensus based socialist "rulemaking” is rampant in all statutory lawmaking, and has created extreme deprivation of rights of Irish people. The citizens of Ireland have had ENOUGH of this mockery of everything good and clean and moral.

It is up to the People to exercise our standing by asking the questions, stating the facts, taking it into the Court and demanding accountability. Unless this is done no one is in control and no one is protecting anyone. – Ireland is at extreme risk of federal takeover and usurpation in the state by these traitors occupying the lawful offices and acting outside of a lawful oath or constitutional process.... they can’t do it.... IT'S AGAINST THE LAW !!! But it is up to the people to prosecute and enforce consequences.

You said “And it is not how the next constitution will be written.” Well tough luck.!!! We have a Constitution right now and it will only ever be rewritten when the people allow it. The 1937 date you mention is when it was initiated but that has no bearing on the matter, it was the power of the people then as it is now. It was intended to regulate our society then as it does now. It worked well to protect the people from the tyranny of the State then and it does now and no sneaky bastards will undermine its authority as long as there is Irish blood flowing in good Irish people.

Of course it could be said that behind our backs that Irish blood and voting power is being diluted and that the sovereign ability of the Irish people to vote on their own decisions is rapidly being stolen by foreign regulations that are said to supersede Irish law but also by the huge understatement of the amount of foreign immigrants in every corner of our country who of course will soon enough be given the right to vote on our sovereign affairs.

We Irish were not asked our opinion on immigration numbers, but being who we are we did not refuse when charity was asked. That did not give those who were privileged to represent us a ‘Carte blanche’ to flood our country, but now we are inundated with immigrant quantities of tsunamic proportions.

The shoreline of our building sector is littered with failing Irish businesses as far as the eye can see. Ask any Irish plastering contractor or mason, even now they are scavenging for work. When the cycle turns, as of course it will, Irish building employees will be decimated. The same turnabout will wreck havoc in the catering industry, agriculture and manufacturing. This is the worst kept secret in Irish history. We are at a stage where we cannot but mention the war.

I do not for one second say that we should not play our part in world or European business or politics or that we should ever change from the record breaking amounts and efforts that we have always donated to charity, but we must ensure that we remain able to be able to do so as an Irish entity because make no bones about it, we are being invaded and there are those within our state that are betraying our country by committing treason from within.

When Mike McCormack the National Historian wrote his piece called HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF some might have differed with his opinions but the fact remains, we as a country have from time immemorial been under siege and today we are more than ever. The answer always was and will be the same; the people must rise up as a powerful wave, a tsunami in itself, to sweep it all away and re-establish justice and independence for our people. And do you know why? Because we deserve it, we have made our reputation as good and decent folk well before now.

There is a place called Ireland for those who believe in Ireland and there is a place called the Atlantic for all those who claim to be Irish but act to destroy our nation as expressed in our peoples Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann.

Sure, if I wanted to trade insults with someone, I probably could do an excellent job. I have some good ones. But why? This is not a light issue. It deserves a better discussion when the victims include your friends and family and all future Irish generations.

author by Badmanpublication date Sun Oct 09, 2005 20:46author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"There is a place called Ireland for those who believe in Ireland and there is a place called the Atlantic for all those who claim to be Irish but act to destroy our nation as expressed in our peoples Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann."

So, you are advocating drowning all people who disagree with the constitution (as interpreted by 'family men'). That should reduce the population to 6 people or so.

author by Shipseapublication date Sun Oct 09, 2005 21:01author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Mr Rea uses legal argument selectively to suit his purpose. On the one hand, he cites the constitution as being the ultimate authority. On the other hand, he is equally happy to cite judicial interpretation of the constitution where that interpreation is in line with his purpose but nevertheless refining i.e. altering the meaning of the constitution. And on his third hand, he is happy to rely not on legal argument at all, but on the arguments of a branch of the executive in the Dail , Mr De Valera - donkeys' years ago - (again only where it happens to suit his prupose). No information is given as to the true state of precedent which has long since left Mr Rea and his arguments behind. By then end of his contribution, the constitution is left like an embarrased and awkward bachelor in a dance hall.

Mr Rea also argues:

'It is settled law that Married women in the Republic of Ireland have an equal right and duty to their Husbands as Nurturers, Carers and Educators of their children, but they do not have an equal right and duty of full Custodial responsibility in law to “keep” and “safe-keep” their children as Providers and Protectors.

This hierarchy of accountability in law as a form of management is necessary, as in all hierarchies, for the efficiency and safety that it confers on the Family as a group. '

Mr Rea then acknowledges that this hierarchy is a hierarchy of vulnerabiltiy in which the children are the most vulnerable. This unequivocally implies that women are the second most vulnerable (not being heads of families). Within such an arrangement the women and children are the properties of men and vulnerable most of all to the whims, ignorance and any other unpredictable tendencies the 'head of the family' may be susceptible to.

What Mr Rea is referring to here is not 'family' at all, it is only an extension of property law in which which women and children are reduced to matters of legal title and compliant beneficial interests .

Fuck that for a game of soldiers.

author by Harry Reapublication date Sun Oct 09, 2005 21:09author address author phone Report this post to the editors

You can do lots of things with the amount of water in the Atlantic beside drown people in it.

Referring to population size.

Turkey might soon have entry to all EU rights, such as migration.

Their population is currently standing at 73,556,173. Ireland has a population of 4,015,676 so if we do as Mary Robinson and co promote then we might exchange (for cultural reason???) just say 5% of our populations.

That means we send them 200,784 and they can send us back 5% of their population or just 3,677,809 souls. Do you have much room to spare in your attic?

author by Badmanpublication date Sun Oct 09, 2005 21:39author address author phone Report this post to the editors

What are these non-drowing things that you can do with the water in the atlantic?

When has anybody ever advocated exchanges of percentages of populations? The UK, France, Germany and Italy all have similar sized populations to Turkey's. They all can migrate freely to ireland. The population of this island has not grown, in line with your projection, to 10s of millions. Indeed, your line of argument is of such manifest silliness that the only conclusion that I can draw is that you are attempting to create a racist scare of 'dark skinned' folk migrating here to garner support for your extremely reactionary views.

So, you think that men are at the top of a hierarchy over women. You don't like dark skinned foreigners coming to Ireland. You want to dispose of the vast majority of the population who don't agree with your views in the Atlantic. I assume you think gays are evil and satanic. Are there any bigoted views that you don't hold? How about the jews, surely you have something nasty to say about them too?

author by jeezebel & elijah - on the day of psalm 23 and paul's letter to the filipinos.publication date Sun Oct 09, 2005 21:42author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Lets get lots straight, I know your constitution inside out, and agree with many of your observations on the legal profession. But I don't agree with your politics.
In fact I've jsut decided after examining the detail and content of your contribution to this forum "indymedia ireland site" and the tone of your comments and replies "TO OPPOSE" your group.
Just as the same decision has been made in other comparable European states where your equivalents are active.

& it find very interesting that your group,
need to refer to certain catholic sub-cultural texts, and present the agenda of the majority of men in your situation with constant un-warrented attacks on the activists of other agenda. This owes more to contemporary american right wing culture than you realise, yet you dress it as a conservative almost patriotic Irish / Eire identity.

I oppose you, because you are not positively contributing to the project of securing for the Irish peoples in their entirety the republic they deserve and the society they merit through a constitution which serves them.

This time, you left no quote from paul to the ephesians. So no "feminism is evil and we've forgotten bondsmen were slaves and there aren't that many gentile circumcisions in Wexford".

No this time your attempt to "shock" us at the injustice was a reference to the gay community (and we call the female kind lesbians Mr Rea, there are also many other shades of gender minorities. There are more of them in Ireland then formerly married men who support your group)

your words:-
{The court will shortly try: "gays are equal, we will acknowledge it or it violates the constitution" all the while their whole process and statutory foundation is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, void of law, and unenforceable.}

Now that really made me giggle Mr Rea, and to think you believe that rights come "from our creator alone" and that old Mr DeValera enshrined that for you. De Valera murdered his way to the theological national assertion Mr Rea.

You are right, "This is not a light issue. It deserves a better discussion when the victims include your friends and family and all future Irish generations."
Which is why "we" are going to deal with it, and marginalise you. Its too important for you to mess with. Best of luck with your law suits, I hope your children appreciate your suffering. You're not a bad man, just politically offensive and barking up the wrong trees.

sin é.

author by Harry Reapublication date Sun Oct 09, 2005 22:14author address author phone Report this post to the editors


Firstly, one might swim in the Atlantic, or fish but the point I made in my input was that if someone did not agree with the democratic means available to them in Ireland that they might use the Atlantic as a means of going to another place where tyranny or deception of the people is acceptable. It is not, nor will it ever be acceptable here.

You said “. The population of this island has not grown” I think you are wrong there but even if you are right then my point is made because if our population has decreased by so much that the hundreds of thousands of immigrants have simply fitted into the place where Irish family numbers once were then we have a very real indication of how well the Irish States population control policy has worked.

All we have to do now is consider that every time we see a foreigner on our streets that an Irish person has been replaced by that amount. Kinda staggering don’t ya think?

Regarding your suggestion that I might begrudge needy or oppressed peoples from other countries? Read my text again. I said

“I do not for one second say that we should not play our part in world or European business or politics or that we should ever change from the record breaking amounts and efforts that we have always donated to charity, but we must ensure that we remain able to be able to do so as an Irish entity because make no bones about it, we are being invaded and there are those within our state that are betraying our country by committing treason from within.”

That explains clearly that we should be allowed to have an Irish country with Irish peoples decision processes in place especially because we wish to keep our Irish reputation of being a charitable and Christian nation.

author by how the rich hate the poorpublication date Sun Oct 09, 2005 23:03author address author phone Report this post to the editors

In an ideal world, marriage maybe the norm, unfortunately in reality, 75% of marriages in Northern Ireland end in divorce or separation.

It is not feminists who are making marriage difficult but the oppression of the poor/ working class by our government and the minority rich.

It is financially impossible for poor unemployed working class couples to marry, because once this occurs, their benefits are cut, so a married unemployed couple get less money to live on, then unmarried couples. Financial hardship and unemployment causes intolerable stress and friction in relationships.

This is just one way the system penalises/punishes/discourages the poor from trying adopt a semblence of respectability and happiness.

So working class children of the poor are at a disadvantage with regard to respect and status, immediately in terms of not having the stability and respectability of married parents.

These welfare policies are carefully designed to degrade, demoralise and disenfrancise the poor, to put them in their place and to reinforce middle class/professional/rich stereotypes of the underclass, being amoral and not living by the same standards of the allegedly morally superior married rich.

As to the speculation that children with married parents are happier and more sucessful. From first hand experience i can say this isn't the case.

My friend is separated from her partner, and her son has been more educationally sucessful,happier and well adjusted, than my son who is from a two parent household.

Even though her son went to an ordinary secondary school he achieved 10 'O' levels, the majority of which were grades A+ and B, and they live in a working class estate.

You only have to look at the case of respectable married police man John Torney who murdered his wife and 2 children, and the countless domestic abuse cases, to see all is not well within the institution of marriage. After marriage the woman inevitably gets isolated and trampled on, either emotionally or physically abused and in the insular, inward looking world of the capitalist nuclear family, the childern become dissociated from wider society and socialisation norms.

75% of women in Derry have been physically assaulted by their partners.

This sets in place a pattern of dysfunction for offspring to follow, who then spend the rest of their lives, trying to escape and make sense of the madness/violence they have witnessed or emulate the violence of their fathers.

The children who murdered James Bulger came from respectable working married families. Both parents worked to make ends meet and avoid the stigma/financial hardship of being on benefits, to the detriment of their son, who left alone while his parents worked, turned to violent videos for company and instruction, to fill the sociall void, left by his working parents.

author by freepresspublication date Mon Oct 10, 2005 14:04author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Sorry, but Ireland doesn't have that reputation at all.
Ireland has the reputation of being a mean place that permenantly fronts its foreign policy two steps behind the british with Bono and Geldof in between.
It spends almost nothing on infrastructure, the only city in the world where "metro" isn't distributed at the dinky transport system stations of the same name.
Its contributions to ngo, and international aid is restrictive and in real terms constantly diminishing.

Its perceived on the mainland of europe as a racist society, and is only attractive as a third home (third try to settle) for lower middle class asian or african families.
Perhaps you don't know how "international reputations" are made in the globalised world.
Well, they are made for the most part through hollywood products or international news. Ireland therefore is known as the home of the "troubles", very christian yes, charitable? doubt it.

Beyond that Ireland has been portrayed with great success as a place where women were enslaved for having children out side of "wedlock", where young boys could be brought to london by tall and slightly suicidal christian brothers, where journalists got shot for doing their job, where criminals thrashed caravaggios robbed banks and had two wives, (very ephesian), and of course we can't forget "the comitments". Bit old hat now, but still a vintage display of multi-cultural tolerant run down suburban dublin no?

Or maybe you think nigerians still remember the nun pittance they were given in 1937? Well, now go out and find one (a nigerian or a nun) talk to them about it.

author by Shipseapublication date Mon Oct 10, 2005 15:15author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The poster above called 'how the rich hate the poor' claims the following:

'The children who murdered James Bulger came from respectable working married families. Both parents worked to make ends meet and avoid the stigma/financial hardship of being on benefits, to the detriment of their son, who left alone while his parents worked, turned to violent videos for company and instruction, to fill the sociall void, left by his working parents.'

The facts of their early lives are different:



author by Another feminist - also proud of itpublication date Mon Oct 10, 2005 19:26author address Derryauthor phone Report this post to the editors

I can see why it is mainly men who post here - rational debate seems to be largely missing, must be all those male hormones. Is it your 'time of the month' boys? Anyway, you are all throwing around lies, damned lies and statistics. The poster about poor people being discouraged from marriage has a point, though it is cohabitation from which they are discouraged, not marriage, by the benefit system. I suppose though that it is easier to pretend not to be cohabiting than to pretend not to be married - since the state is automatically involved in marriage.

But, let's get some facts straight: 75% of marriages in NI do NOT end in separation or divorce. It is about 34%, a similar rate to Britain. Also, 75% of women in Derry have not been abused by their partners. I am involved in Women's Aid and can tell you that while there is a high level of domestic abuse [mainly against women and certainly all the most severe violence and abuse is against women as can be seen in the murder statistics, especially here in the North], I think the figures are something like one in four women, or 25% have been abused by a partner or ex-partner.

Before the AMEN types start going on about domestic violence against men, I would like to just say this: women who leave abusive relationships often end up dead at the hands of their ex-partner. I've never heard of the same happening a man who leaves an abusive woman. This leads me to reiterate what I've said before - of course women are sometimes violent towards the men they live with but it is not used as a control mechanism in the way (some) men use violence or the threat of it to control women they live with.

Thanks to JOD for clarifying the difference between the MCI and the NMCI. Think he's right that Youth Defence types are behind the latter.

author by JODpublication date Mon Oct 10, 2005 20:24author email JODPRC at gmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

indeed it was

author by John O'Driscoll - Individualpublication date Mon Oct 10, 2005 20:41author email JODPRC at gmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Another Feminist for your good word. I hold no objection against anyone's beliefs, Youth Defence's included. What I dislike is disingenuousness. That's just me, most hold that black propaganda is a legitimate tactic in warfare.

I simply don't see the need for warfare and thus neither black propaganda. If you hold a partisan view - as I do in many things - come out and say it under the sun under your own name(s) and have done with it. Let your case stand or fall on the merits of your facts and your rhetoric.

Otherwise we'll never stop failing our civilisations with endless wars based on lies and propaganda IMO.

I agree in part with what you say. But women can be lethal, and no doubt about that. Heaven hath not rage like love to hatred turned nor hell a fury like a woman scorned. There are an increasing number of cases in the headlines involving wronged and/or vengeful women who lashed out at their partners with fatal results.

But I think the inevitable reality is that men are by simple dint of muscle mass and hormone still the far more lethal of the two.

Lethal physical assault is one thing Feminist that I'll grant you women should have priority protection from in the system.

But there's other forms of abuse, namely torture with its myrmiddons of psychological, emotional, personality and simple soul damage. Read an excerpt purporting to be from a CIA "torture manual" - pretty mild sounding stuff, but when you read that the upshot of their (non-violent) torture techniques, which include white noise, humiliation, fear generation, suggestion, hypnosis and other subtle coshes, that the upshot is psychological regression, which is defined therein as follows:

[BEGINQUOTE] Regression is basically a loss of autonomy, a reversion to an earlier behavioral level. As the subject regresses, his learned personality traits fall away in reverse chronological order. He begins to lose the capacity to carry out the highest creative activities, to deal with complex situations, or to cope with stressful interpersonal relationships or repeated frustrations.{ENDQUOTE}

you begin to appreciate that short of the massively increased risk of fatal assault either in or post- the abusive relationship men and women suffer equally from verbal, emotional, psychological and physical abuse.

It simply makes us into children again. In many cases makes us back into what we were just before we were first abused.

author by JOD - Individualpublication date Mon Oct 10, 2005 20:51author address Chinaauthor phone Report this post to the editors

It doesn't bring us back to the last moment we were children. It brings us back to the first moment we were no longer children, were neither adults, but were in fact something not quite human. That is the most appalling loss that abuse inflicts.

author by Harry Rea - The National Men's Council of Irelandpublication date Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:40author address author phone Report this post to the editors

According to this someone’s facts are not up to scratch:

The New Zealand Herald 3 September 2005
Rankin to run big families campaign By Simon Collins

An Auckland property developer has thrown a wildcard into the election with a multimillion-dollar campaign to turn social policy around to stop families breaking up.

John Sax, chief executive of Southpark Corporation, has hired former Work and Income head Christine Rankin to set up For the Sake of Our Children Trust, which will run the campaign.

Other celebrities supporting it include former All Black Stu Wilson, athlete Steve Gurney, TV3 newsreader Howard Dobson, author Alan Duff, parent educator Ian Grant, Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples, National candidate Tau Henare and MPs Peter Dunne and Muriel Newman.

Mr Sax told 300 people at Auckland's Sky City Convention Centre last night that 30 years of misconceived social policy had produced babies born out of wedlock, parents walking out of marriage, payments for sickness instead of wellness and for unemployment, not employment.

He cited "un-politically-correct facts" that children were three times as likely to die from child abuse if they were living in de facto families, four times more likely if they were in sole-parent homes, seven times more likely if they lived with step-dads or in blended families, and 73 times more likely if they lived with mum and her boyfriend.

"We claim we have the right as adults to pursue any relationships we like - but at the cost of our children, do we?" he asked.
Children of sole parents were also twice as likely to drop out of school, 2.5 times as likely to commit suicide and four times as likely to have health problems, said Mr Sax.

Sole-parent families were 4.6 times more likely to have drinking problems and 5.6 times more likely to be drug-dependent.
Girls raised in homes without their fathers were six times more likely to have children as teenagers. Children raised in fatherless homes were 19 times more likely to end up in prison.

"If we value our children, we must love, nurture and care for them in peaceful households with families who love them to bits, in a peaceful community where they know they are cared for."

Mr Sax said the campaign did not offer any alternative policies, but wanted to spark a nationwide debate about the issue.
As well as running his business, Mr Sax has worked for 16 years on youth mentoring schemes in Otara and Mangere and helped to found the New Zealand Mentoring Association.

He said the campaign would have a budget in "multi-seven-figures". He declined to comment on how much of it he was funding himself.

Ms Rankin, who took a grievance case against the Labour Government when her job as head of Work and Income was abolished, said she moved from Wellington to Auckland four months ago and was working three days a week on the campaign. She and her son also run a human resources company.

Dr Sharples said his involvement with Mr Sax predated the creation of the Maori Party and he supported the campaign's principles.

author by Webwatchpublication date Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:51author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Murdering wife free because her husband shouted at her - she would have got a longer sentence if she had killed the dog for barking.
Her husband was a former body guard yet we are supposed to believe he 'walked' into the knife and died instantly.

"Keningale moved towards her husband, the court was told, INTENDING TO SLAP HIM TO STOP HIM SHOUTING, but her husband laughed.

That was when she picked up the knife, which she had been using to make her husband's packed lunch.

The court heard Keningale turned towards her husband, holding the knife, and he stood up and moved towards her.

The knife, which had an eight-and-a-half blade ENTERED HIS CHEST. She had not meant to seriously hurt Mr Keningale, the court heard."

The way the BBC reported this is so misandric the reporter should be put on trial for a hate crime.

From: Peter Tromp


The court heard Keningale did not mean to kill her husband

A woman who stabbed her husband with the knife she was using to make his sandwiches is beginning a three-year community rehabilitation order.

The judge at Cardiff Crown Court was told Doris Keningale, 43, had suffered frequent verbal abuse.

German-born Keningale had previously denied the murder of her husband, Vincent, 61, but admitted manslaughter.

The court heard her husband was a "Jekyll and Hyde" character, and had refused to seek counselling.

The court was told she had not intended to seriously hurt her gardener husband when they started arguing about her plans to launch a jewellery business.

The prosecution accepted that Mr Keningale had been verbally abusive. On the night of the stabbing, Mr Keningale, was sitting on a stool in the kitchen of the couple's home in Risca, near Newport, south Wales. He had been drinking and was shouting at his wife.
Keningale suffered 'intolerable' abuse, the court heard

Keningale moved towards her husband, the court was told, intending to slap him to stop him shouting, but her husband laughed.
That was when she picked up the knife, which she had been using to make her husband's packed lunch.

The court heard Keningale turned towards her husband, holding the knife, and he stood up and moved towards her.

The knife, which had an eight-and-a-half blade entered his chest. She had not meant to seriously hurt Mr Keningale, the court heard. 'Cruel' words

Keningale was said to have been "hysterical" while dialling the emergency services. Her husband was later pronounced dead in hospital. She later told police: "I did not want to kill him. I just wanted to say: 'Please stop'. He was so aggressive I could not cope any more. It was a cry for help."

The court heard that the couple were both Cliff Richard fans and had met at one of his concerts in Usk in 1991. Mr Keningale had worked as a bodyguard to the star.

The husband was described as a "Jekyll and Hyde" character, and had refused counselling. His wife had asked him to seek medical help for mood swings and forgetfulness.

Keningale had told the court that mental abuse was worse than if she had been abused physically.

Ieuan Morris, prosecuting, said the couple had few friends and Mr Keningale did not encourage his wife to socialise, and had used "cruel" words.

'Avid' fans He said it was "a very sad, cruel background, where the verbal abuse was intolerable".

The court heard that the couple were both "avid" Cliff Richard fans and had met at one of his concerts. Mr Keningale had once worked as the singer's minder.

Photos had been taken in evidence, including ones of memorabilia relating to Sir Cliff, said Mr Morris.

Peter Murphy, in mitigation, said: "This is as close to an accident as it is possible to come."

He said his clients remorse was genuine and heartfelt and she remained in love with her late husband, but displayed features of "battered wives' syndrome".

Sentencing her, Judge John Griffith Williams QC said: "You were truly and genuinely shocked by what happened."

She gave her a three-year community rehabilitation order.

author by First feminist back againpublication date Tue Oct 11, 2005 17:40author address Dublinauthor phone Report this post to the editors

Between January 1996 and the end of June 2005, 109 women were murdered in Ireland, 72 of these in their own homes. In those cases which have been resolved (up to the end of June 2005), all were perpetrated by a man and almost half were perpetrated by the woman's partner or ex-partner. http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=7787

29% of murders in Northern Ireland involved domestic situations (RUC Statistics).

From 1991-1994, twenty four women were victims in domestic violence related homicide. Other serious violence cases which came to court totaled 1031, these included grevious bodily harm, Actual bodily Harm, threats to kill etc.
979 victims were women;
52 victims were men. (RUC Statistics).

One women is seriously assaulted (ABH, GBH, attempted murder) by her male partner every day in Northern Ireland (RUC Statistics).

author by obviouspublication date Tue Oct 11, 2005 18:29author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Obviously its better for a child to have two parents rather than one. Its easier for them to bring up the child for a start. That isnt condemning single parents.

If someone is suggesting that husband sor wives beatup or kill people then come out and admit that people shouldnt be allowed have children because they are unreliable.

author by Mary C.publication date Tue Oct 11, 2005 19:22author address Dublinauthor phone Report this post to the editors

And that is a fact. A child is killed every day in Britain by a parent/carer. As long as children are seen as the 'property' of their parents and as long as parents have the right to hit children and then claim "reasonable chastisement" as a defence if they are prosecuted for assault, some parents will continue to go too far and end up killing their child.

While no one would (or should) deny that women sometimes hit their partners, the strength difference means that men hitting women can mean the women end up dead whereas relatively few men are killed by their female partners.

The question about whether one or two parents are best for children is an out-of-date one in my opinion. We should be demanding that society plays more of a role in raising children - providing flexible high quality childcare that can be accessed by all children, whether their parents are working or not. Providing healthy, free breakfast and lunches at school to take some of the pressure off parents who are struggling on low incomes. All the research shows that a little bit of family support goes a long way towards giving children a better experience of childhood.

author by Fintonpublication date Tue Oct 11, 2005 22:27author address author phone Report this post to the editors

by Patrick F. Fagan and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.

The institution that most strongly protects mothers and children from domestic abuse and violent crime is marriage. Analysis of the 1999 findings of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has conducted since 1973, demonstrates that mothers who are or ever have been married are far less likely to suffer from violent crime than are mothers who never marry.

Specifically, data from the NCVS survey show that:

Marriage dramatically reduces the risk that mothers will suffer from domestic abuse. In fact, the incidence of spousal, boyfriend, or domestic partner abuse is twice as high among mothers who have never been married as it is among mothers who have ever married (including those separated or divorced).

Marriage dramatically reduces the prospects that mothers will suffer from violent crime in general or at the hands of intimate acquaintances or strangers. Mothers who have never married--including those who are single and living either alone or with a boyfriend and those who are cohabiting with their child's father--are nearly three times more likely to be victims of violent crime than are mothers who have ever married.
Other social science surveys demonstrate that marriage is the safest place for children as well. For example:

Children of divorced or never-married mothers are six to 30 times more likely to suffer from serious child abuse than are children raised by both biological parents in marriage.

Without question, marriage is the safest place for a mother and her children to live, both at home and in the larger community. Nevertheless, current government policy is either indifferent to or actively hostile to the institution of marriage. The welfare system, for example, can penalize low-income parents who decide to marry. Such hostility toward marriage is poor public policy; government instead should foster healthy and enduring marriages, which would have many benefits for mothers and children, including reducing domestic violence.

Violence Against Mothers

The DOJ's National Crime Victimization Survey collects data on victimization through an ongoing survey of a nationally representative sample of Americans. The survey defines violent crime as rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. Domestic or intimate abuse is defined as violent crimes performed by a spouse, former spouse, boyfriend, or former boyfriend

Related Link: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1535.cfm
author by parentpublication date Tue Oct 11, 2005 22:49author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Parents should bring their children up, not the State.

And any parent knows the benefit of having a partner to help bring up their children.

author by Harry Rea - The National Men's Council of Irelandpublication date Tue Oct 11, 2005 23:58author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Who can deny that violence is not a growing trend in our society BUT...... the increase is stemming from somewhere that could not be said to be the Married family because the Married family has been around for eons and our predecessors never had to face what we face today.

And…., before you jump on your bandwagon about violence always being there, stop and think, you would be fooling yourself to even consider such stupidity. Laws were not made yesterday to protect the innocent. Irish case law and international case law has plenty of examples where abusers were brought to justice, both male and female.

It is only since the advent of the rampant attack on the Married Family and in particular that done by the Family Law racket, that the control and authority that Marriage had on children, that our world has gone berserk. Fool yourself if you want, but the people are no longer being fooled. Ask someone, anyone, do they trust Family Courts and listen to their answer. The gutter of the Legal industry is flourishing while our lives and future of our children is being destroyed.

When we read where ‘Another feminist” wrote above that “75% of women in Derry have been physically assaulted by their partners” you would have to wonder why there is no mention of ‘by their husband or wives’??? And why? Why say ‘Partners’?

“By their partner” is not a good enough description any more, in fact it never was. We have to be specific, because that purposely evasive statement is implicating the vocation of Marriage in a most divisive way and also I believe it is purposely meant to affect the attitudes of the voting public against the principles of good solid MARRIED people who have committed themselves to their families and children IN PUBLIC.

Ask any member of An Garda Síochána, when Domestic Violence is reported do they distinguish between Married people and any other. The answer is NO! The Gardaí define any persons in a house or abode who act harmfully to any other there as perpetrators of domestic violence. Don’t believe me, ask one of them.

While you’re at it, ask them from their experience what percentage of the people responsible are Married? Then you might begin to understand why crime is increasing! Why violence and murder is increasing! And why the domestic violence tactic is being used as the greatest of all ploys to con the public into paying over vast sums of unregulated state funds into an a totally unjustified attack on Marriage. It’s the oldest of all deceptions, divide and conquer, the fat cats get fatter, and the people suffer.

Do you still believe that the results such as that of the research that we in the National Men’s Council of Ireland have compiled that verifies beyond doubt that Marriage is the safest place for all peoples then read the independent report provided to Micheál Martin TD when was Minister for Health and Children that was commissioned by HIS OWN DEPARTMENT. Maybe one day you might have the pleasure of his company, why don’t you ask him tom his face?

If you are on the wrong side of fixing this escalating dilemma facing all quarters of our Irish community then the time has come to change. The destruction of the Irish Married family is contrivances that has gone horribly wrong and if you care not about the families around today, then give a thought of what lies ahead for our future generations.

I suggest that we should always be suspicious when someone uses any sentence that defines ‘Partners’ as seeming to have any similitude to ‘Married couples’ with regarding to how they behave to each other, the facts are all to available to say that generally they cannot be compared.

Men and Domestic Violence:- What Research Tells Us [Ireland]
Report to the Irish Department of Health & Children - October 2000


by Kieran McKeown & Philippa Kidd

This report was commissioned by the [Irish] Department of Health and Children. As its title indicates, we were asked to find out what research studies tell us about domestic violence against men. In answering this question we have broadened the context to include women as well as men so that the experience of each can be seen in a comparative context.

Some may find this a challenging report essentially because it questions a long-standing consensus, both in Ireland and elsewhere that women are the only victims, and men are the only perpetrators, of domestic violence. We are aware that there are no pure facts, either inside or outside research. Data on domestic violence whether based on self-reports by victims or by perpetrators, by women or by men, need to be treated seriously and to be carefully examined to assess their validity and reliability. We have tried to do this in a balanced way in the report.

Related Link: http://www.family-men.com
Number of comments per page
© 2001-2020 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy