By Sue Price: Men’s Rights Agency.
Censorship’s alive and well in Australia
Recently, the Australian Labour Government announced an inquiry into their proposal that the Family Law act should be altered to remove Shared Parental Responsibility and interfere with the amount of time a child can spend with their father.
Family Law expert Patrick Parkinson was quoted in The Australian on 30 March 23 where he “branded the changes as ‘staggering’ and said they would result in higher rates of litigation with disputes becoming harder to resolve”.
In the same article retired Family Court Judge, Professor Richard Chisholm was quoted, “It is important for the majority of children to continue the involvement of both parents after family separation,” Professor Chisholm.
Men’s Rights Agency put in a submission and when found, with difficulty, on the Attorney General’s website at Published responses for Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 – Attorney-General’s Department – Citizen Space (ag.gov.au) we were horrified to find the front page of our submission mutilated by the blacking out of a meaningful picture of a young girl hugging her Dad goodbye as her mother looked on. The heading is “Bye Daddy, I love you”.
There is absolutely no reason to black this photograph out. It destroys the message we are trying to send that the Labor Party’s monstrous proposal to remove fathers and shared parenting from the equation sends family law back to the 1970’s when mother has sole custody and child is lucky if they can see their father every 2nd weekend and perhaps half the school holidays.
Many father’s entering the Family Court never or rarely ever saw their children again. In an era which has encouraged father’s into their children’s lives and to move on from being just protectors and providers, this has been a cruelty in the system which successive governments of both persuasions have failed to eradicate.
The photograph which the Attorney General’s Department removed is a stock photo from Dreamstime.com and purchased for use by Men’s Rights Agency. Any standard image search should have been able to locate its provenance; and a simple phone call to us would have eradicated any uncertainty over licensing. That’s their job and they are paid very well to do it.
But the censors have not finished yet. On page 7 there is a side by side photograph of a father who killed three children and their mother and on the right, a mother who took the lives of her four children. Tragic incidents, but there to stress the fact that both mothers and fathers are capable of taking their children’s lives. In fact more mothers kill their children than do biological fathers. These photographs have been widely published on Australian media and on the internet.
Perhaps it is too strong to stomach for those who oppose the idea that fathers are essential in children’s lives. Is it too realistic a portrayal of the future where fathers and their children again will have very limited contact with each other. Is this in the best interest of children?
I think not.
Read the Full submission from the Men’s Rights Agency to the Family Law Inquiry here: Bye Daddy, I love you: The Australian Government Assaults Separated Dads – Men’s Rights Agency (mensrights.com.au)