In the work of fiction, 1984, by George Orwell, Room 101 is the torture chamber for a Government Department called The Ministry of Love. Civil Servants bend the English language in a practice the author calls “doublethink.” Fast forward to 2019, and echoes of Orwell’s vision are found within the paradoxically-named UK ‘Family Courts,’ a real-life institution of family dissolution that forbids shared-parenting after divorce or separation.
Rules of operation in the anti-family Courts, (to give their proper name), are analogous to those of Orwell’s Room 101. Firstly, just as in Room 101, the Family Courts destroy love; that which naturally lingers between members of a family when parents separate to walk different paths. For, parties in court hearings are forced, in the same way as prisoners of Room 101, to say things judges deem necessary to get thier doublethink version of ‘justice.’ Just as befell the main character Winston in 1984, forced to say:
“Do it to her, not me,” – in order to avoid an unendurable fate, condeming your ex in the Family Courts surgically removes love from a soul for the rest of time.
Rule number one of our anti-family Courts is therefore: love does not conquer all, and the Courts know how to remove it.
Rule number two. In a grotesque mimicry of the conversations in Orwell’s book, fathers are forced to engage in debates they cannot win, (because they are in reality an interrogation). Words such as “Justice,” “Court,” and “Judge” confuse a litigant, as what is actually meant are: “Motherhood,” “Enforcement,” and “Administrator.” In reverse order: the role of a Judge was designed to be someone who orchestrates proceedings before a “jury of peers,” and as such Judge’s have no special training in how to assess people, or tell truth from fiction. Yet, in the real world, due to limitations of resources, a Judge on his/her own is all their is to determine minor cases. After all, you would not expect a jury to be sworn in to determine a speeding fine now would you? Yet, despite a father facing the prospect of losing his children for the rest of his life, a single Judge is always all you will ever have in a Family Court.
These administrators make decisions using “templates,” consisting of a series of axioms such as: a child is owned by the State, first, second by a mother, and third or less by a father.
Any debate in front of a judge – whether in giving evidence, submitting argument, applying for an order, or making submissions – is in reality an opportunity for a Court to find ways of enforcing these axioms – the sanctity of motherhood if the case be a private application, the guardianship of the State if a case is brought by social services.
Rule number three is the least believable of all. For, if a father is accused, just like the character Winston in 1984, he is guilty until he can prove himself innocent.
Most will think this author is talking about his own experience, which may not apply as a rule. A sense of being treated fairly is intrinsic to one’s wellbeing, so it is natural you should search for it and want to believe it exists. Yet, the reality of our anti-family Courts is closer to a fiction, for this is the rule applied when dealing with allegations of domestic abuse by men – but not by women.
Under something called the Paramountcy Principle of Family Law, the protection of a child overrides everything, including a fair trial and the humanity of parenthood. All it takes is for the more trustworthy of the two genders in a family, i.e. the mother, to bring such allegations. Unless these claims are implausible, the Family Courts are compelled to immediately remove an accused-father from his children, sometimes giving supervised visits but once-a-month. Until, that is, this mother finger-pointing is investigated, or put more properly, the father proves it false.
Yet, how do you do that? Most homes do not have CCTV in every room; there are normally no reliable witnesses to each humdrum day of domestic life; in short, there cannot be any objective evidence. How do you prove a negative anyway? What is more, in making an allegation, a mother is from that point on empowered by a State-funded legal team, but if she is found to have lied, no action against her will ever be taken.
Rule number four. No contact is contact. In the UK’s equivalent of Orwell’s Ministry of Love, ( i.e. the Family Division of the Courts of Justice), there is a pure example of doublethink. Orders forbidding all physical contact of a father with his children are recorded by the Ministry, in their statistics, as orders for contact. Consequently, there is no data on how extensive and how gender-bias these orders are – the most brutal punishments a society can inflict. When questioned, the severity of separation of father from child is underplayed at all levels in our Ministry. In reality, before a Family case is over, even if a decision for no contact is reversed, children will have forgotten their father and simply do not want to see him, nor feel he is their parent anymore. The damage is often lifelong and affects an average of 3 million children in the UK.
Rule number five. Inadequate contact is adequate. If contact is to be allowed between a father and his children, all in our Room 101 bleat the same mantra, so loudly and consistently that like prisoners in the work of fiction fathers lose touch with reality.
Shared-parenting means a child living, sleeping, eating, and being with both parents and recognizing both their parents’ homes as their home. Social Science has investigated the subject to death, most notably in America where citizens live in more affordable housing, and consequently the equivalent of their family courts recognize shared-parenting after divorce as meaning children living in two homes. Research can even put a number on the amount of time children need to spend with both parents, which is between 35-65% of their time with one or other parent (for contrary to what some believe few separated or divorced couples find a 50:50 arrangement workable). However, in the UK’s version of Room 101 such ideas are an Orwellian “thought-crime.” The very notion of a father asking for visits that amount to more than 23% of a child’s time (alternate weekends and half the holidays), is met with disbelief by all: social workers, mothers, Judges, and anyone else the Court allows to speak. In fact, staying contact of a child with a father is considered a great concession to ‘the beast that is a male parent.’
More typically, fathers are given 5-7% of time with their children, with one overnight stay a month. Senior feminist advisers to the UK courts will espouse a philosophy that says the amount of time a father has with his children is not as important as the quality of that time, something that is simply nonsense. At the end of a court hearing, many fathers leave with a certainty of slowly being alienated from their children, who will eventually look upon him as a special relative, but not a father. For this, they are often grateful, as by the end of the process, they have become, like Winston, a brainwashed better citizen of the UK Feminist State.
Rule number six. Family Court Orders are for men, not women.
Male-parents who break Family Court child arrangement orders face serious consequences. If they are so foolhardy as to run away with their children to spend more time with them, they will certainly serve seven-years in prison, per child. Moves are afoot with lawmakers to increase this to life in prison. If a father has an injunction against him from a Family Court, something which can be made on an ever increasing list of wafer-thin pretexts, (such as a mother getting a letter saying she had been thinking of moving into one of the many state sponsored Woman’s shelters), and makes the slightest transgression, (in one case I know putting a foot in the porch of a house he was paying for), he will go to prison for two-weeks, automatically. Yet, at any time, a mother can refuse to comply with any visitation order, and the consequences are well, nothing, normally.
This last rule goes to the heart of our Orwellian analogy. Big Brother did not exist, he was not a person but an ideology. Importantly the dictatorship of 1984 served one group’s interests (i.e. party members) over others; for the greater good of a State. For if a social system served no one but an ideology, or serves but a single person, it would be liable for eventual overthrow, as a malignant force. However, a system that serves one groups’ interests over another is benign, be it a dictatorship or a democracy, (it matters little which). For from a bird’s-eye perspective citizens of any society want different things, and thier differing needs or desires are always conflicting. A struggle for the interests of groups of people within society is a necessary part of the human condition. So it is within the Family Courts where there has been a power-grab of children by one gender over the other, but in a process that is throughout all and any society, be it a dictatorship, Kingdom, democracy, or something else. In the execution of their bias, winners will always justify thier gains to losers in a way that entails a swaddle of lies and contradictions; and what comes out of the Family Courts is no less.
What Orwell did in his book was to create a fiction that exaggerated a principle in a story that made it clear – using the Western World’s then fear of communism and dictatorships. The important point of this analogy, important to the millions of fathers stripped of their children in the UK, and often their life savings as well, is that contrary to what dispossesed fathers think, and in line with the outcome in 1984, things will not change. Despite the inhumanity of the Family Courts towards fathers, such things are intrinsic to all social existence, the norm, and a stable state of affairs.
Many would say Orwell got it wrong, there is no dictatorship in the UK, no communism left in the world, and the year 1984 passed without the apocalyptic vision he portrayed. I say he got it exactly right. Over the last 50-years, with women given the power to regulate their own fertility through the pill, as women went from 7% of the workforce to the present day 47%, society in the UK has as a consequence evolved into a lying-distortion of morality. Take away Big Brother and replace it with Big Sister. Take away Thought-Crime and replace it with “PC”. Take away Room 101 and replace it with the Family Courts. Take away Double-Think and replace it with the rhetoric of Gender Pay-Gap lies, Sexual Discrimination distortions, #Metoo untruths, the myth of mass violence against women and domestic abuse, as well as many other falsehoods that come from the likes of State funded Woman’s Aid, the Department for Justice’s Department for Violence Against Women, The Department of Sexual Equlaity, and false advocacy from State backed organisations like Refuge. Finally, take away the Ministry of Information and replace it with the BBC, now 70% manned by women in positions of influence.