Family Court Secrecy  

Family Court Secrecy To Be Partially Lifted We need to make the courts more open. Privacy is necessary to protect families seeking justice - but privacy is not necessary to protect the courts, which should have nothing to hide. Harriet Harman - if you can believe it.

However, let us not get too excited. These are only proposals. Besides which, ...

At the same time, we must ensure we have tough penalties for those who breach anonymity restrictions and name children.

... The idea that parents should not be able to discuss openly matters which affect them and their families very profoundly is nothing short of outrageous, as far as I am concerned.

What next, eh? Will parents not be able to talk at all about what is going on in their families? Surely not! So why should it be the case that parents have to shut up just because a family court has got involved?

Well, let me explain why our feminist-worshipping officials want to keep the names of those involved in family disputes secret.

There are two main reasons.

1. To Hide Corruption And Anti-Male Bias In The Family Courts

Secrecy allows the legal profession and the government to continue inflicting injustices upon men and fathers without the general public realising what is going on.

For example, take a look at this. It is an excerpt from a piece in the Sun newspaper printed a few days ago, ...

.....................

Mum of 20 leaves family for online lover 

SHE is known as Britain's 'Supermum' for her record-breaking feat of giving birth every year for two decades and lovingly caring for her brood of 20 children. 

But Mrs Nicola Pridham may not be regarded as 'super' for much longer. 

The 48-year-old former nurse has reportedly walked out on her family after having an affair with a married soldier she met on the Internet, leaving her husband to care for their 20 children - aged seven to 27 - by himself. 

Her husband, Mr Kevin Pridham, told the British press that he was completely shocked at his wife's decision to dump them for an Internet fling. 

... Struggling to come to terms with not having any more kids, Mrs Pridham began spending a lot of time visiting Internet chatrooms on her daughter's computer. 

That was where she met her alleged lover.

... After meeting 'Ginger Squaddy' online, Mr Pridham said his wife suddenly went on a crash diet, losing over 30kg, changed her hairstyle and began 'dressing like a teenager'. She also began spending nights away from their home in Lincoln, telling him that she needed 'space'. 

Mr Pridham said that he discovered her six-month-long affair when he found a Valentine's card from her lover hidden under the bedroom carpet. The card was signed 'Ginger' and held several train tickets to places where his wife had travelled for trysts with her lover at hotels. 

He also found out that his wife had secretly bought herself a second handphone, chalking up a $2,000 bill in just three months. It also contained dozens of raunchy text messages. 

Mr Pridham said he was devastated by the discovery. 

'We had a terrible row, the first of many. She was travelling all over the country just to be with him,' he told The Sun. 

'She was going away for two or three nights at a time while I was left looking after the children and trying to keep my job going. 

... He claimed his wife begged her lover, who lives in Oxfordshire, to leave his wife and child but he refused. 

.....................

So. There is certainly not very much in the way of anonymity there! And, of course, the tabloid press is always publishing detailed and lurid stories about people's private lives.

Now, ask yourself this question.

Why is it legal to print the above in a national newspaper - read by millions - when what goes on in family courtrooms must remain secret with the parties remaining anonymous?

Well, the answer is simple. It is legal for the Sun to print the above because no judge is involved in the issue - and so no judge, or law, is being criticised, implicitly or explicitly.

In other words, secrecy in the family courts is designed to hide corruption and prejudice, not to protect the parents or children.

Generally speaking, secrecy in the family courts is about feminists, governments and legal officials pursuing their self-serving agendas with as little scrutiny as possible, and it provides a method - the arm of the law - with which to intimidate and to threaten with "tough penalties" those who want to expose what is going on.

Now, take a look at the following two paragraphs from Ms Harman's piece.

At the same time, we must ensure we have tough penalties for those who breach anonymity restrictions and name children.

We can't allow a situation where confidence in the family courts grows as their work becomes more transparent, only for it to plummet through children or parents suffering the anguish of being identified.

Firstly, notice the sleight of hand.

In the first paragraph she justifies "tough penalties" by associating such penalties exclusively with the naming of children. But, as can be seen from the second paragraph, she is really talking about anonymity for all parties; parents included. 

As Adolph Hitler said, As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.

Secondly, notice that Ms Harman talks about the 'anguish' that children or parents might experience if they are identified when they are involved in the legal process.

But you will not see Ms Harman worrying about the anguish of parents or children when, for example, men are accused of, say, sexual crimes. The names of these men - even if later found to be completely innocent - can be paraded about in the glare of full publicity regardless of any distress that this might cause to their children. (Many of these men have actually killed themselves.)

Now, if Ms Harman was really concerned about parents and their children then she would insist that men who are accused of sexual crimes should remain anonymous. But, in fact, throughout her whole political life she has argued the very opposite.

Furthermore, Ms Harman is, in my view, a typical vindictive man-hating feminist who has put some considerable energy over the years into breaking up families - which, she reckons, oppress women. And so the very idea that this woman has any concern for families is just ludicrous.

Think about it.

She endorses the view that the identities of innocent men who have been accused of sexual crimes - and all men are supposed to be innocent until proved otherwise - should not be protected; no matter how much distress or hurt this might cause to them, to their families, to their friends or to their children. But when it comes to the family courts, she suddenly expresses concern that no-one should be identified.

2. To Allow Women To Get Away With Their Various Malefactions 

Part of the feminist agenda is to disempower men and to empower women regardless of what this might mean for any notions of justice or 'equality'. And, to this end, the feminist-controlled legal system tries to ensure that when there are any disputes between men and women, the women can remain anonymous.

And this is why when it comes to 'relationship' problems - whether these are to do with, say, sex-assault or family break-up - the legal system tries to guarantee anonymity for the women who are involved.

In other words, the common denominator is preserving the anonymity of women, not children. 

Fortunately, however, Ms Harman's desire to inflict "tough penalties" on those who dare to breach any secrecy imposed by some self-serving judge in the family courtroom will not wash for very long, because, thanks to the internet, there are many ways in which such secrecy can be sabotaged. And, of course, if the courts were to pursue and to try to inflict "tough penalties" on parents who spilled the beans then it would not likely be long before the growing men's movement increased the amount of activism in this area; activism which, quite clearly, has already been successful judging by Ms Harman's current proposals.

In other words, there is no longer any satisfactory route for men, for society or for government to be found behind the doors of secrecy in the family courts. Only trouble lies that way.

Trouble that will escalate as the men's movement grows.

Of course, I am not suggesting that complete openness is something that can be achieved overnight, nor that there will not arise many problems from the complete removal of secrecy for some people who find themselves in the family courts. But the consequences of not removing secrecy from the system will - and does - cause far more harm than good.

Furthermore, people would soon become accustomed to the proceedings of family courts not being kept secret, and they would accommodate their behaviours and their attitudes accordingly. 

Indeed, most people would probably behave a little better towards each other if they knew that any malefactions would more likely be exposed to a wider audience.

Well, I could go on! - especially about the benefits of - and the inevitability of - the 'spread of information' etc; but I will spare you all the agony. I will simply point out that the secrecy of the family courts has allowed feminist-dominated, feminist-fearing, feminist-indoctrinated judges to continue heaping injustices upon men in all areas to do with their relationships - and that this has gone on for long enough. And unless men can speak openly about what is happening to them in the courtrooms, serious prejudices against men will continue to occur.

This is not acceptable. 

And the authorities will definitely find themselves having to face an escalating amount hostility if they persist in operating highly-prejudicial secret courtrooms.