Talk:Fathers 4 Justice

Contents

1 A disturbing tendency 2 The neutrality of this article continues to be disputed. 3 The neutrality of this article is disputed. 4 Older discussions 5 Anon additions of mid-August 2004 6 The motivation of the superhero. 7 Who demands the use of contact centres 8 The F4J article appears NPOV. 9 Begging to differ 10 The civil disobedience movements of Gandhi did include business closure etc

A disturbing tendency

A disturbing tendency, which Matt O'Connor warned about right at the start of his campaign, and has mentioned in interviews since, is that he cannot guarantee that there won't be other groups who won't be so restrained as F4J officially is. F4J, I gather, operates a principle of subsidiarity whereby local cells are fairly automonous in their initiatives. Matt O'Connor mentioned this week that he would throw out anyone who brought his organisation into disrepute. But if he throws out too many, and they remain organised using the infrastructure already in place, then O'Connor's prediction about 'other groups' might come true, effectively at his own instigation. There was a report about an F4J action which included pouring petrol over someone's car, which could have been lethal. This is evidence of the thing getting out of control, which is disturbing. Matt Stan 10:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article continues to be disputed.

24/11/04 - still disputed, still anodyne.

I raised a neutrality concern about this article about six months ago. I'm concerned, on revisiting it today, to see that it still reads much like a PR sheet for the group - not too surprising given the input to it by Matthew Stannard, who I understand to be the Company Secretary of the organisation [1] (http://www.fnf.org.uk/manifesto.htm).

Fathers 4 justice is a great orginization, which is growing in america. http://www.fathers4justice.us

If there is a concern about neutrality then anyone can change the article! If there is a concern about neutrality then it would be helpful to indicate specifically what the concern is. If there are balancing views that should be getting expressed, then why aren't they? For readers' information I am no longer the Company Secretary of FNF, though I am still a trustee of that charity. I am not a member of F4J, and FNF is not associated in any way with F4J. I have reported (mainly from the Press) matters of interest to me in the field of promoting changes to family law and procedures in the UK, which includes information about F4J gleaned from news articles. If I have been biased in the expression of my views then I would welcome any correction. The background, which raised my interest in F4J was an interview I did on Radio 5 Live some while ago in which I discussed the F4J campaign on-air with Matt O'Connor. My views have always been to rigorously oppose any violence. This is what I told Matt O'Connor. Therefore I am interested in monitoring whether their policies are actually being carried out. Matt Stan 10:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A single example [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Fathers_4_Justice&diff=5182209&oldid=5182145) will for now suffice: to say that the flour throwing incident in the Commons "makes the world a safer place" indicates to me that the author has relatively little sense of perspective, and would be willing to parley most outrages down to mere misdemeanours. Presumably blowing up Airey Neave in the HoC car-park can, equally, be defended as having caused improved security procedures, on much the same logic.

In fact, it was Harrison, of F4J, whom the BBC quoted as saying that he hoped their demonstration had made the world a safer place. Matt Stan 13:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was of two minds about the violent nature of the fun powder plot. At one level, the terror generated by MPs' supposition that the purple powder might have contained sarin or somesuch, can be thought of as violent, in the same way that a bank robber with a dummy gun is. At another level, the tradition of throwing harmless objects (like eggs) at politicians, is well-established and generally not considered violent. I wrote at the time it can be argued that an assault on the person of the PM, and the fear induced in the chamber by this action, is of a violent nature. My actual view, on balance, is that this was an act of violence, and I would not personally have taken such action. Matt Stan 10:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bottom line is that any criticism of this single interest group appears systematically to be edited out or diluted by Mr. Stannard, to leave an anodyne article suggesting that, at worst, we're dealing with a benevolent and even handed group of latter day saints. --Tagishsimon

I am not aware of having edited anything out. I am not sure that an encyclopedia is the place to express people's feelings about an organisation, particularly if not backed up by facts. I aim to engender an understanding of what the fathers rights' movement is about, which includes describing the views of its member organisations. There is the good dogma of NPOV in wikipedia, which I aim to comply with. It is perhaps frustrating for people who evidently disagree with giving F4J publicity, which I suppose it can be argued wikipedia does. But that's just freedom of information, which is always an uphill struggle! Matt Stan 10:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

I'm surprised that the article contains absolutely no criticism of the campaign group. By their nature, campaign groups tend to have detractors.

There are however passages such as (my emphasis added):

The success of the F4J campaign has rested primarily on its poignancy as opposed to any notions that it supports anything other than nonviolent protest. This policy has led to their support being extended beyond just people who have experience of the family justice system, and now includes many women.

I have other minor criticisms of the admixture of the description of F4J with the views of Matt O'Connor; the latter might be best taken to a Matt O'Connor page, as should the information that Mr. O'Conner makes a self-comparison with Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Mandela, and that he has two young sons. --Tagishsimon 22:42, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was given the full F4J thesis by a London taxi driver the other day. He wasn't in a situation of needing to fight to see his children, but he expressed views in support of those who were. Whether or not he would have been so well-informed had F4J has a different policy is hypothetical. F4J has taken the policy it has and there was a massive amount of media coverage that led a number of people to be sympathetic to his cause.

There is a view that the situation that F4J is fighting is itself the result of a brand of radical feminism in social services organisations, whose perpetrators, naturally, do not wish to explain the dystopia they are alleged to have created. How else would you explain it? Bob Geldof's thesis is that once people are aware of the abuses that occur then the law will change.

So it doesn't matter what forces are at work to have brought about the current situation - only that they are neutralised. The lack of an alternate or opposing view being expressed speaks for itself.

Perhaps if you imagine the article was about Gandhi's movement, you wouldn't be so surprised that there are no detractors. And far as getting rid of the British Raj was concerned, the movement was Gandhi. F4J is led and, largely, financed by Matt O'Connor. He isn't the entire fathers rights movement, but his organisation's activities have captured the public imagination, and brought about wider awareness of an issue about which many have been ignorant. It may be that a separate Matt O'Connor page would be useful, but the current article just indicates that F4J is his initiative, and gives such a small amount of information about him that I did not think it warranted a separate article when I wrote the original piece. Matt Stan 23:37, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It might be in order to differentiate between the success of the campaign in raising awareness first of the compaign, second of the issues; and success in getting the sought changes.

I accept your lack of opposition on the issues argument (in the absence of awareness of evidence to the contrary), and suggest a remedy of brief discussion of "The lack of an alternate or opposing view being expressed speaks for itself", combined with a point about institutional inertia, and one about the arguable origins of the current apparantly dystopian state. Clearly, I note that some of these issues should be and possibly are discussed on the Fathers' rights page

On the Gandhi argument, I seem to recall the British Empire was not overkeen on the chap and mounted some sort of opposition. In the F4J case, I seem to recall some backlash, even if it was only from aggrieved commuters and a police spokesman, reported in the Evening Standard.

If the view of F4J = Matt O'Conner, then that it may be useful to say so. Alternatively a presentation of the specific issues of concern at this time to F4J could be written, which would provide for a more structured detailed issue - brief description of issue - F4J view of issue. Such a treatment would list facets of the specific current UK situation, mindful of and perhaps with pointers to the Fathers' rights treatment of the generic nation-independent issues --Tagishsimon 00:17, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea of detailed issue - brief description of issue - F4J view of issue and will try to remember to employ it. Matt Stan 19:28, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Older discussions

Is it true, Mr Adams, that F4J is the armed wing of Families Need Fathers? Paul Beardsell 03:38, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Who is Mr Adams?

As far as I am aware no one who supports F4J is armed. It has been held right from the start of its campaigns that its members should set an example to their own kids. Hence the superhero themes of its actions. If nothing else is achieved by appearing on TV in a batman suit on top of a building, it is the thought that this might be the only opportunity that his children will have of seeing him that spurs the demonstrator on. Campaigners want to appear doing things that are likely to make their own children go, "Wow, that's my dad!" The success of the F4J campaign has rested primarily on its poignancy as opposed to any notions that it presents a terrorist-style threat. Bearing in mind that it is led by a successful marketing consultant, there is clearly much intelligent effort put into ensuring that F4J's campaigns sway and inform public opinion, without damaging the image of the father rights movement. Matt O'Connor, leader of F4J, has warned that if reform is not precipitated by the non-violent demonstrations that F4J coordinates then he can't guarantee that others won't come forward, such as the Black Shirts have done in Australia, who won't adopt a more radical stance. There are similarities in leadership style between Matt O'Connor and Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Mandela, and it will be interesting to see how long it is before F4J becomes a subject topic for school projects about political reform. Who knows, there might be children out there reading this, who are underaking such a project right now? Matt Stan 09:01, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

FNF is an established charity that cannot, under its own constitution and under the Charity Act, engage in or support conduct that is in breach of the law. Therefore FNF plays no part in organising F4J civil disobedience campaigns. A number of F4J's actions have involved lawful assembly and demonstration, and FNF members are not constrained by the rules of the charity from engaging in any lawful action. The two organisations do share the aim, along with Bob Geldof, of getting the system changed, and FNF does not presume to advise anyone whether or not they should get involved in F4J's civil disobedience campaigns. It is worth pointing out that the nature of family proceedings in the UK is such that membership of a political organisation such as F4J is likely itself to be used to undermine a father's case to see his children - on the grounds that he doesn't really want to see his children; just to discredit the system. FNF emphasises its role as a volunteer-based self-help group assisting fathers at the start of their quest to resolve family disputes. F4J members tend to be those who have gone through that process but whom the system has failed. What is intersting is that, although he has released no audited figures, Matt O'Connor claims that membership of his organisation has burgeoned phenomenally over the past year, tending to support the claim of Justice Thorpe that there is "a major problem throughout the family justice system"[3] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,961940,00.html), which only the government can do something about. Matt Stan 09:01, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) (FNF trustee)

Gerry, I was joking! And I very much respect anybody who is prepared to go to gaol or suffer other hardships for their beliefs. Paul Beardsell 09:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To me it is the above which is truly interesting. The info needs to be in the article! Paul Beardsell 09:37, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bob Geldof told me last year that he thought demonstrating outside judges' houses was 'fair game', but FNF had given an underaking to Dame Butler Sloss, President of the Family Division, that it would not engage in this type of demonstration. I told Geldof that I believed that even family court judges should be allowed to enjoy their own family lives without harrassment. So there has been discussion of what role FNF should play, and it has decided to focus on its pastoral role and on political lobbying, leaving the public awareness campaign to F4J. It might be more accurate to claim that F4J is the media arm of FNF, though FNF volunteers generally have too much to do (supporting their own members) to get heavily involved in organisiang demonstrations. Matt Stan 09:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Why is there no description of what the F4J is fighting for? Don't assume the reader already knows. Also, don't assume the reader is British. Bwood 01:25, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

In short, because the article is not great yet. I hope to work on it today. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok I have done a refactoring - adding a lot of material that I hope goes someway to meeting your concerns. I have also removed some material that seemed very "insider", speculative and unverifiable. I would be interested in comments on this. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks. Bwood 23:15, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I've changed the founding date from 2004 to 2003 but there is a reference in The Scotsman [4] (http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/press/press01a.jpg) about Matt launching F4K late 2002, and the whois for FATHERS-4-JUSTICE.ORG does show a creation date of 07-Aug-2002 registered by Matt, so maybe it should change again? -Wikibob | Talk 13:50, 2004 May 20 (UTC)

The 2004 was a typo on my part, thanks for fixing that (other parts of the article already referenced 2003). From your research it seems that the O'Connor got going in 2002, but didn't get significant attention until 2003. Maybe the article should simply say that? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi all... F4J *alledgedly* has links to the far-right, the BNP has apparently endorsed their viewpoints etc, and it may be worth mentioning that the group meets in a Hotel in All Stretton that is also frequented by various unpleasent (IMO) far right groups/people. Not sure how that could be fitted into the article though. Alnu 15:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I trawled google to try to find out if others had reported on links between F4J and the far-right. I found little significant to report. However you are right, the BNP has commented on F4J and basically approved of their campaign (now there's one group who you don't want to endorse you!) It is available here - http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/2004_jan/news_jan18.htm. The BNP states "there is no connection whatsoever between them [F4J] and the BNP" before going on to approve them. I don't think it would be appropiate to add anything to the article at this stage, though I wouldn't be the surprised if the mainstream press do some digging after this weeks events and see what dirt there is. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I remember seeing a news story about this - probably in a recent copy of the the Independent. Can't find online though. Morwen 16:25, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Armed with this information, I found this story (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=523354) from today's Independent (which explains why Google didn't have it yet). See the last four paragraphs. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Agreed... it's probably not a good idea to include anything on it yet... locally there are some... er... interesting rumours about the group. Just rumours, although some newspaper hacks have been seen in the area. All Stretton has a bad reputation locally, BTW Alnu 11:34, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

The BNP linked themselves to Fathers 4 Justice because of the media exposure F4J was attracting. This is the first thing that should be made clear. The objectives of Fathers 4 Justice have nothing to do with the right wing racist ideology. The campaign is focused on the tens of thousands of children who find one of their parents removed and excluded following family breakdown.

And my mother (because grandparents are affected also) isn’t a nazi either!

F&S

I, and other editors, realise this seems to be the case - which is why we decided not to include any reference to the BNP in the article for the forseeable time. Pcb21| Pete 08:11, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anon additions of mid-August 2004

I notice that an anon (62...) has recently some chunks of criticism of F4J, presumably thinking this is ok in the name of balance. However, as a bystander who doesn't really give a toss one way or the other, they read a bit like mud-slinging.

In particular, were the attacks outside caught sanctioned by F4J or was it some individual acting alone? Seems unlikely that a physical attack would get the endorsement of a pressure group.

Also characterizing the flour bomb attack as physical violence seems to be an attempt to characterize the event in the worst light. Physical violence means harm, I don't think that was what was intended. It would be good to have feedback on this before toning down the changes. Pcb21| Pete 14:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The motivation of the superhero.

A recent addition to the article from Matthew:

Since June 2004, women supporters too have adopted similar disguises and joined in the protests, indicating that the cause that F4J represents is not an exclusively male preoccupation.

Or it could suggest that even women feel the urge to don fancy dress so as to appear on TV.

Paul Beardsell 19:30, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Who demands the use of contact centres

I changed the end of the article to reflect the truth that contact centres use is only considered when one parent demands it. In a private family law case there are generally only two sides. If the father wants to be with his children at his home and doesn't want to use a contact centre then the only way that it would be ordered that he did so is if the other side, i.e. his ex, demanded it. There is no other possibility. Matt Stan 20:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The F4J article appears NPOV.

I have read the Fathers 4 Justice article and do not understand what the dispute is about: the article describes who the group is, what they believe and what they do. This is the same as many other articles describing people and groups in the Wikipedia.

Manumit 14 September 2004

Begging to differ

The only violence that I have heard about in relation to F4J operations was during the handcuffing of Margaret Hodge, when a group of men, probably lawyers, laid into one of the F4J activists, who was trying to get up on the stage. An eyewitness account said they laid into him with some zest.

The comment in the first paragraph - begging to differ about the non-violence of F4J - by not being specific, seems to be an attempt to create innuendo rather than be factual. It is certainly the case, I am sure, that some of the people who are the brunt of F4J's actions feel violated, as is the intention of their actions, which are a response to the violation that activists feel they themselves have suffered. That isn't the same as being on the receiving end of violence. Perhaps these solicitors, politicians, judges and CAFCASS staff have been harmed by the violation they feel. Who knows?

What will be interesting and of some concern is if people affected by F4J's actions feel so irritated by the disruption caused that they, like the lawyers at the Margaret Hodge conference, erupt into violence themselves. Imagine mass outbreaks of road rage as F4J blocks a major motorway during the peak Christmas period. If such occurs will F4J members be arraigned for provoking violence in 'normal' 'law-abiding' subjects of the realm? This remains to be seen. Matt Stan 00:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The civil disobedience movements of Gandhi did include business closure etc

The civil disobedience movement of Gandhi did include business closure and gheraos ( i.e forcefully surrounding the offending official and making him stay ) . So comparison of Matt O'Connors is apt. Road closure ( Also known as Chakka Jam ) and disturbing peace near british officials home were definitely part of the gandhi's movement's. The idea of non-violent protest is that without physically harming you make the authorities uncomfertable and distressed. The movement of Matt O'connors is definitely no more violent then Gandhi's is if looked from realistic perspective. Gandhi burned the law books Can we expect F4J to burn the useless contact orders.

In terms of violence, I;ll hazard that there will be two things that F4J gets remembered for: 1) the first occurrence of a policeman pointing a gun at an unarmed man and threatening to shoot him if he didn't climb down a ladder. 2) the first incidence of a group of lawyers setting on a man and beating him up in front of an audience. Signs of the times? Matt Stan 19:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)