Human Rights down the gurgler

One of the latest issues raised is about intellectual property that has infiltrated the minds of Australian media is intellectual property and genes. Last year, Melbourne Technologies requested that all of the hospitals cease testing for breast cancer, because the company owned a patent on the mutation gene. The value of life was put second to greed and diminished the exercise into a pure waste of talent. We all deserve to be paid for our services and no doubt have control over what we create. However, when we are actively participating in a cause that damages human life when there are other ways to address it, then those rights need to be prioritized below the rights of others in the heirachy of human need.

It was disappointing to receive comment from a photographer that had a past in advocating for human rights, particularly our indigenous community. The ultimate betrayal was to shelf a slimy depiction of fathers laying on the shore like, "beached whales" in the same need catagory. An insult to the hard work of environmentalists and the plight of animals that has somehow become a forgotten kingdom. Yet, like the Australian government body FACSIA, because it was just such an entertaining sympathy stunt - they ciphened the funding from the people who need it more. The word "families", use to include mothers, but now its returned to the 1900 predicament of children being the property of white men as if they were a commmodity. The media has not even chipped the tip of the iceberg on indegenous communities, let alone the suicide rates that belong to them. So the camera that use to expose truth has joined the bandwagon of hypocrisy. Perhaps if Charles Manson was lying on the shore, it might have been a bit obvious. Its well known that the suicide rates for fathers are not that high, no matter how much the mens health committee might make it. Dads in distress were recently rejected on the basis for suicide prevention and no wonder why they could not meet the criteria. So if they are not here to support suicide prevention, what are they there for? They say that they support divorced dads, so this is a custody coaching service? Could it be the very thing that FR had been accusing women shelters of doing?

What we do know is that dads in distress support parent alienation syndrome, a bogus diagnostic fabricated by the notorious pro pedophilia Doctor called Richard Gardner. We know that the syndrome itself went to an extreme in becoming overzealous in pursuing false allegations that in every study remain at a very low percentage of the population, some stats have been between 0.02 - 2% but more recent figures only reach to the maximum of 12% and in that study most of the false allegations were from fathers. Dr Richard Gardner went beyond what would be described as cruel, he suggested that the child be separated from the mother until they stop raising abuse, part of what he referred to as, "Threat Therapy". He perverted the plights of victims by masquerading the sensation that they were at fault because they could not accept pedophilia and there was something mentally unstable about their beliefs towards that. He died in 2003, but his followers worked very hard to legitimize the syndrome, quoting the most respectable and concealing the most abhorrent parts of his literature. Dig a little deeper and the beliefs about condoning child abuse and violence against women are ingrained. No scientific organization has ever accepted this as a diagnosis, but the courts and fathers rights advocates still hold this card close to their chest as the ultimate abuse- excuse game. The courts get acquire ongoing income choosing an abusive parent as they know that they are guaranteed that this parent will keep coming back to the courts aware of the concealed dangers. Fathers rights advocates use this to steer the laws and thinking behind these laws towards building a motherless society. The amount of times that a supposed "shared parent advocate" has supported a father in gaining full custody is endless.

This is just one of the dirty tricks being pulled to dominate the agenda and up until grassroots mothers rights and childrens rights groups started exposing this and they were very successful. In United States where many of these concepts originated, the conditions for mothers and children after separation are appalling. Mothers and children living with abuse, have fewer choices in being able to leave as the shelters have had many funding cuts, the media has become the voice for fathers and murder suicide has replaced many of the exits. Despite a history of violence and previous begging for protection from the courts, the media puts every single murder down to the "economy". Yes this movement also practices censorship too. Everytime a domestic violence survivor group has tried to bring this out in the open, fathers rights groups have found a way to shoot it down. If the threats don't compel a website owner to take it down, then an angry letter to its advertisers or hosting provider usually falls victim. Earlier this year, we exposed how a journalist was attacked for reporting on the adverse effects of the shared parenting laws. Thankfully in this situation, the media watchdog, complained about the enormous amount of aggressive submissions. Last year, they rallyed a bunch of angry men to stop a domestic violence campaign to be put on buses on which they referred to as, "father bashing" yet statistics state that fathers are more likely to perpetrate violence toward women and children. Another trick is the copyright stunt where they go after letters or emails that expose their aggressive correspondence and corruption. On the other hand, they have absolutely no regard for the intellectual property of domestic violence campaigns and even stole Amnesty Internationals purple hand print to promote fathers4justice. In fact I have not sighted anything that is remotely original in their campaigns or speeches. If I decided to start a lawsuit for every time some angry fathers rights advocate used and twisted quotes of my writing to support their shameful agenda, I would be richer than Bill Gates. If you take the opportunity to read up on psychopathic behavior, there is some disturbing aspects on how they feed upon their prey. A normal person who comes across an accident scene where a child has injured themselves would feel and express emapathy towards the child and the mother crying at the scene. A psychopath devoid of all empathy would zone in on the mothers expressions and spend a fair amount of time in front of the mirror mimicking them. Considering all that the movement promotes in the realm of child abuse and domestic violence, it is no wonder some of these behaviors present themselves as they do. By masquerading as the ultimate victim, they have managed to mislead many into believing that its for a good cause whilst the true victims lay dormant in silence and further detriment.

A voicemail message was sent to our service by a women that claims to be Belinda Mason, the photographer who took the photo of the beached males. She stated that the link to our website that ran a satire of the picture was "sent to her". She stated that the picture no longer representing fathers appeared to defame her and asked to remove it. This was shortly after a response to her comment that was placed under the article claiming a "breech of copyright" along with a personal comment attempting to discredit the writing as an, "attack". Our response to that included some valid points about how such a case would be unsuccessful due to the "fair use" exception that in United states allows discussion and in Australia allows "Satirical purposes" of which both were exercised. So the "Defamation" was another attempt to censor the article. Yet the original photograph itself is a defamation in its depiction of only white males as if they were the victims beyond, children. whales and women. She might have photographed some realistic views of human rights in the past, but in this one her photo is an arm of propaganda, like the posters displayed during the holocaust. In that genocide psychopathy was at its primitive levels, whilst today such messages are more subtle in promoting hate.