Where is your Queen in all this?

So, what is royal policy, exactly, on state intervention into the lives of families?

It's complicated Dinohip. The short answer is nowhere and nothing.
However:

Some of the government's executive authority is theoretically and nominally vested in the Sovereign and is known as the Royal Prerogative. The monarch acts within the constraints of convention and precedent, only exercising prerogative on the advice of ministers responsible to Parliament, often through the Prime Minister or Privy Council. In practice, prerogative powers are only exercised on the Prime Minister's advice—the Prime Minister, and not the Sovereign, has control. The monarch holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister. The monarch may express his or her views, but, as a constitutional ruler, must ultimately accept the decisions of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet (providing they command the support of the House). In Bagehot's words: "the Sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy ... three rights—the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn."

Our current Queen has exercised all of these rights, but Prime Ministers don't usually make it public.

In a 'hung' parliament with no clear majority and no duly elected Prime Minister, the Monarch takes control. In modern times this would mean calling a fresh election since he or she has nobody to deal with.

Consider the Australian crisis of 1975:

There exists a convention that the Governor-General (appointed by the Queen on the advice of ministers) only orders a dissolution on the advice of the Prime Minister. This convention was broken in 1975, resulting in a very serious constitutional crisis in Australia, when the Governor General controversially exercised his reserve powers and dismissed the Federal majority government of Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.

The Queen, through Her Governer General, intervened simply because Gough Whitlam could not pass a budget and government workers were not getting paid. This led some Australians to call for a republic and others to sing "God Save the Queen" more loudly. In the last referendum the latter group won.

Around the world, monarchies are still respected because they represent the moral and cultural life of the nation. Above all, they are non-political. Most people would rather be the subjects of a benign monarch than taxpayers to a self-serving, corrupt and devious politician. It's human nature.

Diana was a bad choice. She was dim but there were plenty of degenerate hangers-on that taught her how to exploit the masses and the media.

When the Monarchy becomes a media-circus to promote feminist ideas, we know we're in trouble.

Marx it looks like you and me share the distinction of being in the same article; congrats.
Earl

Quote from Earl Silverman

Marx it looks like you and me share the distinction of being in the same article; congrats.
Earl

What are Raven 01 and I?

Cat food?

Not at all, Outdoors.. It's fantastic that so many of the smaller-communities got a mention!

Aw. I'm not mentioned...

Outdoors, c'mon dude, have a cuppa n chill out

It won't look so bleak in the morning...

I am glad to see the high level of interest in the article; it seems to have joined many people to carry arms against the gazette.

MASH4077 supports men with or without children in an area that is not funded; while I may not expect everyone to support it, I find it disheartening when anyone rains on anyone's practical idea that has been put into motion to raise attention to the issues that men really face; misandry.

As I do not know any outdoors I cannot reply to his experience.

during the Soviet years Pravda daily delivered the propagandist swill bolstering the period of commissar control of the masses per misinformation on omission of facts and outright lies - it is called the mushroom treatment : feed them bullshit and keep em in the dark;

the lying and pernicious ideology of feminitism ,delivered by the feminit and mangina commissars in the press and other mass media, is no different except maybe their BS is still steaming

I have to say I'm a little shocked.

The article was biased. Not one doubt about that. But how many times do I see posted on this site, "women abandon their children every day", "women kill their kids all the time", "women sacrifice their kids to get/keep a thug", etc. etc. etc.

In rare instances, it's "some" women. Usually, it's just, "women". And those things do happen all the time.

But how is it that when women do it, it's evil, but when men do it, it's because they were backed into a corner??

Newsflash - and pay attention:

It is NEVER, EVER, EVER, not in a MILLION years, ok to kill your kids. EVER!!!

Unless perhaps they are trying to kill you.

Seriously?? "I don't get to see my kids, so I'm going to kill them"?? On what planet is that even approaching rational??

You know what? When we become parents, it ceases to be about us, and it becomes about the kids. That's called being a parent. I don't care what sex you are.

Granted the article was biased. Granted the article was unfair and poorly researched. Granted the article used almost exclusively feminist resources. Granted men have a right to be angry. Granted, I see it in real life (not just in some article on the internet).

But dude, seriously? It turns my stomach a bit when I see people come to the defense of people hurting their kids.

Many of us here do use 'some' frequently when followed by 'women'. I don't bother affording feminists the same courtesy.

NCFM has written about this, here.

Father’s on Edge, Poytner’s Ommission and Supremist Feminist Influence in Reporting | National Coalition For Men (NCFM)




I couldn't have found a more appropriate image if I tried...

http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/...#ixzz21mlb2762
A tragic custody case draws the attention of groups convinced family courts are biased
By BILBO POYNTER, Special to The Gazette Montreal Gazette

Raymond Brassard rbrassard@montrealgazette.com
Asmaa Malik, amalik@montrealgazette.com
Basem Boshra, Arts & Life Editor bboshra@montrealgazette.com
Catherine Wallace, Managing Editor cwallace@montrealgazette.com

Dear et al;
As the recipient of Bilbo Poynet’s disparage and misalignment of purposefully misquote, I deserve the right to provide a response to the personal skewing.

I support Glenn Cheriton, President , Canadian Equal Parenting Council and his letter in response to the article.

For the most part the father’s movement’s first priority is children.

Here is a situation; H1N1 is an infectious virus, if it effected 6.4% whites [you can insert any group here] and effected 6.0% of non-whites [you can insert any corresponding group here], but there were 593 facilities with over 10,000 beds for the whites and no facilities and no beds for the non-whites we can agree we would call this situation “racist”.

If you agree this example is an example of racism then please continue to read my letter, if you find the situation valid then there is no need to continue.

The real story here is according to Statistics Canada Family Violence 2010; 6.4% of women and 6.0% of men have experienced abuse from their partner BUT there are 593 facilities for women and 0 [zero] neither funded facilities nor any beds for men.
My letter to Quebec Health and Social Services Minister Yves Bolduc focussed on the issue that if there were services for men and fathers there would be less homicides and suicides due to the court system; men would have support going through their painful family issues and not have to resort to the behaviour I described. This is a last resort that no one can support.
If men and women are expected to be treated as equals why is there a male exclusion?

From my research I conclude the main reason that fathers want to be involved in their children’s lives different to what was 20 years ago, is because fathers are now allowed to participate in the birth of their child. Previously fathers were delegated to the maternity waiting room with their cigars either with a blue or pink ribbon. Every father I spoke to whom have taken 6 months of maternity leave have declared that was the best 6 months in their life.

Another example of the imbalance between men and women is Molly Dragiewicz, a criminologist at the University Of Ontario Institute Of Technology who studies the father's rights movement. Where there are those who are paid to study fathers rights movement; the father’s rights movement has no funds to do anything.
We are not taking away from women we want to be treated with equal respect for our efforts.

I included a letter I received from Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to add to my credibility, and the letter I received from the government of Quebec.

Earl Silverman
www.familyofmen.com
Passing the Funding Hat | Family of Men Support Society

Quote from KellyMac

I have to say I'm a little shocked.

The article was biased. Not one doubt about that. But how many times do I see posted on this site, "women abandon their children every day", "women kill their kids all the time", "women sacrifice their kids to get/keep a thug", etc. etc. etc.

In rare instances, it's "some" women. Usually, it's just, "women". And those things do happen all the time.

But how is it that when women do it, it's evil, but when men do it, it's because they were backed into a corner??

Newsflash - and pay attention:

It is NEVER, EVER, EVER, not in a MILLION years, ok to kill your kids. EVER!!!

Unless perhaps they are trying to kill you.

Seriously?? "I don't get to see my kids, so I'm going to kill them"?? On what planet is that even approaching rational??

You know what? When we become parents, it ceases to be about us, and it becomes about the kids. That's called being a parent. I don't care what sex you are.

Granted the article was biased. Granted the article was unfair and poorly researched. Granted the article used almost exclusively feminist resources. Granted men have a right to be angry. Granted, I see it in real life (not just in some article on the internet).

But dude, seriously? It turns my stomach a bit when I see people come to the defense of people hurting their kids.

There is a fine line between understanding someone's motives, and supporting their actions, to be sure. Maybe we read things differently, but I didn't see much in the way people here have expressed themselves that showed any support for a man taking his and his children's lives.

Besides, the whole discussion here is about an article touching only tangently on that topic, paragraphs into an expert-bolstered sermon mocking the very concept of men's activism, a piece of agitprop with no real story or content other than to house a basic party-line ideogram: that anyone opposed to court practice that disfavors fathers is abusive and dangerous. The almost offhand inclusion of the tragedy as an example is a clever but routine propaganda trick, of disguising an extreme example as a typical one and building a hypothesis on that basis.

(Hint: as the son of a former pastor, they do that every week. Take a text from the Bible, the more out of its original context the better, scan the headlines for some extreme situation that illustrates what you say its point is, project it into an apocalypse of sinful behavior, take other quotes out of context to show how submission to that particular church's socioeconomic platform helps us not to act in this forbidden way. Or in the case of feminist agitprop, show how experts confirm that men are prone to violence and must be controlled by the state. The Holy Scripture of feminism is a combination of all news items and study results that they believe corroborate their claims about women as nurturer-victims and men as inferior and psychotic, plus the conclusions of experts who preach on cue and at public expense that abusive behavior occurs because maleness in itself is a dangerous threat to whatever is named as women's interests.)

At least, that's what I didn't like about the article we are (were) discussing.

Quote from dinohip51

So, what is royal policy, exactly, on state intervention into the lives of families?

I keep hearing horror stories from the UK and Canada and Australia about what the courts are doing and what women get away with.
Where is your Queen in all this?

As an American I grew up believing a monarch was a useless, expensive ornament and a divisive vestigial symbol of feudal aristocracy. Our original decision to prohibit a monarchy or even to allow aristocratic titling of individuals established our world view at the outset: that no one man or woman has a place at the head of a free society solely by virtue of birth into an influential family.

Are we wrong about this?

The UK is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional Monarch as Head of State.

But, if the Queen truly has no powers, why has it required her to sign six different treaties from Edward Heath's Treaty of Accession of 1972, to the Lisbon Treaty in 2008, to cede power to the EU? Why didn't the socialist despots in Brussels just bypass her and deal directly with the traitors in Parliament? Is the Queen's legislative role more than just ceremonial?


And what about Prince Charles, who's been offered a veto over 12 government bills since 2005. That's offered, not requested or demanded!

Prince Charles has been offered a veto over 12 government bills since 2005 | UK news | The Guardian