The Irish Family and The Law of The Land: But What About The Children?

 

The law can be either a weapon or a tool – in and of itself law is inanimate – or can be, and should be. What gives substance and form and power to any law is how it is interpreted and applied.

There are also degrees of law – Primary Law in the form of Universal Instruments – such as the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) or the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, see here, are designed and meant to be read and applied and interpreted as broad universally understood statements that encompass and declare the status of, and fundamental protections that Human Beings are vested with by the mere fact of being Human Beings.

For example – a Human Being – absent almost any qualification or exception – has the right to think, believe and say whatever that Human Being likes – unless by doing so it infringes upon the right of any other Human Being to do likewise. (will address Freedom of Speech and The EU in a separate article)

Because there is another thing about “Rights” – Human Rights – your rights as a Human Being are balanced against, or should be balanced against, the Human Rights of every other Human Being on the planet.

Which brings us to.

Secondary Law – or legislation, statute law, regulations, judicial decisions, directives and to some extent codes of conduct applied within certain closed environments (such as colleges and universities) are rules for controlling and regulating human behaviour and conduct.

Human conduct or behaviour is informed by attitude, by personal choice, by belief, by the type of human being one is or isn’t.

Those who do not believe in the concept of Universal Human Rights use secondary law to impose and curtail the freedoms of other human beings – they create and demand the creation of laws that by their sheer weight and extent and density and for want of a better word pernicketyness are meant to distance, to create a chasm between the over-riding principles of Universal Human Rights and the application of secondary law.

Every aspect of human behaviour is to be controlled, regulated, restricted and informed by the particular belief system or ideology of the most influential and coercive “group” and each law is to be interpreted and applied through the prism of their “ideology” – and should enough people – especially those in a position to apply a particular law – believe the corrupt and biased “interpretations” of this “group” then when it comes to making that choice as to how to interpret or apply a particular law – the corrupt ideological approach – wins.

There is in the western hemisphere none more corrupt and vile ideology than feminism – feminists will tell those in government, in power, in the legislature that – this is what this means – or in this situation the law should be applied this way – and they have been listened to – in some cultures and societies to a greater extent than others.

Depends on what informs and has informed the development and history of that particular culture.

Of all the areas where feminism has focused its most malign influence, most corrosive attention, it is in the area of Family Law – because human societies and human beings are made up of families, all human beings are born with the historical legacy of previous generations, and with an innate desire and impulse to form or be part of a kinship group – especially when it comes to having children – to reproducing – to expanding their family.

I’m not even going to address points made along the lines of “but not everyone wants or needs children” for the simple reason that what I am talking about is an innate deeply embedded impulse in ALL species – including human beings.

Without children – in sufficient numbers I might add – the human species is doomed – yep doomed, see here, here and here – probably not to extinction, we dodged that bullet circa 74,000 years ago – but to descending into chaos, into societies that are dysfunctional, burdened by an inability to sustain and care for its members, and societies that are polarised – resources will become scarcer and scarcer and two things will happen – the gap between those have, and those who have not, will grow wider and wider, and the glue that holds societies together – families – will disintigrate – it is already happening. These articles tend towards the economic consequences of falling birth rates – but the negative social consequences are just as relevant as are the influences that precipitated this impending demographic disaster.

Having said that – simply producing more children isn’t enough – those children need to be nurtured, educated and guided into becoming decent human beings, into taking their place as part of the larger human family, into being part of the wider society and culture in a positive way.

There is only way to achieve this – a tried and tested way that has sustained and allowed the human species to grow from an almost extinct level number of approx 10,000 adults of reproductive age to the primary species on the planet – raising the young in kinship groups – in FAMILIES.

Am sure I don’t have to tell anybody this, but human children come in two distinct types – boys and girls – it is generally the first question asked when a child is born – “is it a boy or a girl” and the human parents who created this child also come in two distinct types – male and female – it is the genetic combination of two sets of DNA that created this unique and separate little person, and those boys and girls model themselves on their parents – or whoever their “primary caregiver” is.

Again – not addressing the “but you don’t need a man to have a baby” – see above – yes you bloody do – unless those idiot women are claiming that they have had another miraculous conception – do you need the physical presence of a male person to create this unique and separate little human being? Not necessarily – but you DO need what ONLY a male human being can give – contribute the other genetic half of this little human being.

And here’s something all you idiot feminists, and dumb as a bag of hammers women better get your heads around – what makes that little human being what he or she is only half of you – their genetic legacy comes from someone ELSE – and has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

All children are the sum of not just the two persons who combined their DNA in a unique way to create this little person but of previous generations – so no I personally do not believe that children arrive into this world as “bank slates” they inherit all sorts of potential traits, of particular “family traits” and it is what happens after they are born that determines what sort of human being they eventually end up becoming.

Depending on the influences upon them, their inherent traits are either encouraged in a positive way or a negative way – they are nurtured to be fully functioning and independent human beings or they are used as “an experiment” in “social engineering” informed by a toxic ideology whose primary purpose is to destroy the very thing that makes human beings – human beings – decent human beings – FAMILIES.

The primary victims of feminism are CHILDREN.

Because without exception – feminists know fuck all about children, about raising children, about what is or isn’t best for children, what children need. Absolutely fuck all.

Feminists are the absolute worst possible people to entrust children to – the worst possible people to listen to about raising children – and the worst possible people to have children – am I saying they shouldn’t be allowed to have children? Nope. What I am saying is that having a child and raising that child according to the tenets of feminism is a deliberate and conscious choice to damage that child.

Because for feminists – fathers are redundant – fathers are merely “sperm donors” fathers are “oppressive” and women are the BEST people to raise children – ALONE, and most of this crap has been peddled by loony lefty lesbian radical feminists.

BULLSHIT!

Feminists have been peddling this toxic shit for nigh on 30 years – its influence has spread from the US and the UK to the rest of the western world with varying degrees of success – and millions of dumb as a bag of hammers women have swallowed this crap hook, line and sinker – did they do this because they believe that this is true – up to a point – yes they did – but – in order for this toxic mantra to take hold – feminists engineered societies to make it worth their while for these dumb as a bag of hammers idiot women to have children – ALONE – to excise fathers from children’s lives – they PAID them.

Or rather exerted their toxic influence upon governments and legislatures to PAY stupid, ignorant and to some extent moronic women, to embrace the, “single mothers are so cool” mantra.

Actually single motherhood is probably the worst possible way to bring up children – with a few exceptions – (having that child’s biological father as an essential part of that childs life)

See this study and this  research

Children thrive the BEST in families with both their mother and their father – women who deliberately exclude fathers from their children’s lives are toxic, nasty, vile and vicious creatures – who, never mind leaving a child in their care – I personally wouldn’t leave my cat in their care.

What happens is that in order to continue to propel this toxic agenda, and maintain a myth – nobody wants to look at the facts – even the research I cited to a certain extent downplays the negative parenting of single mothers and the effects it has on children – nowhere is this more obvious that turning a blind eye to the sexual abuse of children by women, see here – and a refusal to accept the blindingly obvious – if these single mothers are the sole “primary carers” of children – and that IS the paradigm that has been peddled – then it is those “primary caregivers” who are responsible for any abuse, neglect or harm to their children

I should note here, that not all parents who dont live together act like this – some of them actually do try and do their best for their mutual children – after all marriages and relationships end – but being a parent is forever.  Some rare people actually get that.

Of all the toxic behaviours displayed by women, one of the worst ( but not the worst)is  Parental Alienation, and it is mostly mothers who launch these campaigns, and judges when faced with one of these toxic wretches, who fail to recognise it, are colluding in child abuse – are exercising their influence and authority to inflict damage upon children, by applying the law in such a way that it allows these nasty vile creatures to damage and harm CHILDREN.

Because they have listened to the toxic bullshit disseminated by feminists, and allowed it to influence and inform their “decisions”

So – after all that – what IS the law in Ireland? And why is it applied the way is stimes is?

First I want to say this – lots of things are “illegal” or “against the law” driving under the influence of alcohol – but people still do it – not as much as before – because of focused campaigns to make this socially and culturally unacceptable. Murder – the unlawful killing of a human being – but people still do it. Stealing other people’s property – but – yet again people still do.

The point I am making is this – you can demand and lobby for “the law must be changed” to reflect whatever YOUR particular ideology demands – but – even if something is or isn’t permitted by law – people will or won’t abide by it – depending on what kind of people they are – what informs their actions and behaviour – and what they believe, and how much ones society or culture is prepared to tolerate such behaviour.

Family Law is no different – the law allows or doesn’t allow certain things – but it is ATTITUDES that inform how that law is applied, interpreted and enforced.

There were are are two types of fathers recognised in law in Ireland – married fathers – those who are legally married to the mother of their child/children and unmarried fathers – those who are NOT married to the mothers of their child/children, married fathers had the benefit of Constitutional protection of their “rights” as parents.

As I stated in the previous post The Irish Family and Bunreacht na hEireann 1937 (The Constitution of Ireland 1937)

ARTICLE 41 

1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

Text here of 2012 version of Bunreacht na hEireann 1937.

In the context of this Article Family is based upon Marriage1 between one man and one woman, and in spite of efforts over the last decade or so to convince the wider Irish public otherwise – THAT is what the vast majority of Irish people believe, yes there has been a shift in attitude to concede that “families come in all shapes and sizes” but – I would challenge anyone to lobby for a Referendum to have THAT Article completely deleted, though yes there has been a Referendum to have this amendment inserted.

The result was challenged in The High Court and rejected – though there is no appeal as yet to The Supreme Court – to the best of my knowledge.

Note 1 –  Article to follow – The Irish Family: Unholy Wedlock – Poisoning the Well.

Children – Article 42A – to be inserted

1         The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.

2         1°       In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

2°       Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.

3         Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.

4         1°       Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings –

i           brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or

ii         concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

2°       Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.

And this one repealed.

Education – Article 42.5 – to be repealed

In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

– but no-one is going attempt to persuade the wider Irish voting public to completely reject the concept of family being the core fundamental unit of Irish society.

Having said that – not everyone was impressed with this new amendment, see here for example (these people have a feminist bias by the way, in spite of being called Human Rights in Ireland (Ironic and a bit creepy)

This is the current legislation on the cards in Ireland – Children and Family Relationships Bill 2013here, here, here

I personally have a some reservations about it. Another separate article.

See here as well.

So, Legislation is being and has been introduced to reflect these changing “attitudes” and allow different “types” of pairings and ways of forming families to be legally recognised, and the legislation being introduced to address the issue we are talking about here – the legal anomaly drawn between “married fathers” and “unmarried fathers” and children’s rights all sounds marvellous doesn’t it?

Our government and legislature is addressing issues of parental rights, children’s rights and acknowledging different types of families.

Now before anyone gets their knickers in a knot and takes me to task for not addressing individual specific sets of circumstances – such as – “but gay and lesbian couples are this that and the other” – or – unmarried fathers are discriminated against in court”

On the first – gay and lesbian couples form a minority of family types and re the reality of fathers experiences in Family Court – I KNOW – what I am addressing here are the underlying broad concepts – the ATTITUDES that inform the interpretation and application of the Law – as it existed, and as it now exists. So, bearing in mind all the hoo hah made about “gay and lesbian” couples –let’s just see how representative they are of the general population. First in Ireland.

“SUMMARY

THE overwhelming majority of individuals defined themselves as heterosexual. Most reported only opposite-sex attraction, but the proportion reporting some level of same-sex attraction was more than double the proportion identifying as other than heterosexual.

Similarly low proportions of men and women have had same-sex sexual experience.

2.7% of men and 1.2% of women self-identified as homosexual or bisexual.

5.3% of men and 5.8% of women reported some same-sex attraction.

7.1% of men and 4.7% of women reported a homosexual experience some time in their life so far.

4.4% of men and 1.4% of women reported a genital same-sex experience in their life so far.

3% of men and 1.1% of women reported a genital same-sex experience in the last five years.”

Page 126.

Let’s put that into perspective – according to the last Census in 2011, there were 1,545,073 females in this country between the ages of 15 – 64. 1.2% represents 18,540 potentially bisexual or lesbian as apposed to 1,526,533 NOT

On that basis – why the hell should anyone listen to the crap peddled by rancid radical lesbian feminists – it’s not like they represent the MAJORITY of women – in any way shape of form – is it? All 1.2% of them.

Though to be fair I am prepared to concede that maybe only half of them are feminists – so that would be a massive 0.6% of them claiming to speak on behalf of ALL Irish women.

By the way this pattern repeats in almost all western states – a tiny minority of women identify as lesbian2 – and yet! In Canada, where apparently they churn these toxic wretches out by the coven load, then foist them on the rest of the world, the picture is more or less the same.

“CCHS Cycle 2.1 is the first Statistics Canada survey to include a question on sexual orientation. This information is needed to understand differences in health-related issues between the homosexual (gay or lesbian), bisexual and heterosexual populations. These issues include determinants of health, such as physical activity, mental health issues, including stress, and problems accessing health care.

Among Canadians aged 18 to 59, 1.0% reported that they consider themselves to be homosexual and 0.7% considered themselves bisexual.

About 1.3% of men considered themselves homosexual, about twice the proportion of 0.7% among women. However, 0.9% of women reported being bisexual, slightly higher than the proportion of 0.6% among men. 

Total number of participants in survey – 316,800

Maybe they all ended up teaching in the University of Toronto? Would certainly explain a lot.

Really does beg the question being asked again – why on earth does anybody, anywhere, give any credence to the unutterable crap being peddled by rancid lesbian radical feminist

Note (2) Forthcoming Article – Why are We Listening to Looney Lefty Lesbians? (its slow going because I can only read so much of the crap they have spewed out – without having to go and bang my head off a wall, to make the pain go away)

 

Do I give a shit what you do or don’t do in the privacy of your own bedroom? Nope. Do whatever the hell you like – but – for the last 30 plus years – the bedroom antics of a tiny proportion of the general populace of nearly all western states have had allowed pain in the arse, rancid radical lesbian nutjobs (feminists)  dictate societal and cultural attitudes and more destructively, public policy and law.

With regard to how fathers are viewed and treated in Court, again it is ATTITUDES and culturally and societal acceptable behaviours that informs what happens there, behaviour that is tolerated culturally and socially manifests itself in Court rooms, it is the cultural and societal context in which a legal system is embedded, that informs the level of approbation that the judiciary is prepared to level at these toxic little wretches – at the risk of using a rather strange example.

I mentioned above that the attitude to drink driving has undergone an almost about face here in Ireland – yes – people still do it – but there is now a pointed and prevailing cultural and societal attitude of approbation towards THOSE who “get into a car drunk, or under the influence and drive”

Utilising that same power to change cultural and societal attitudes – one can – not just inform the general public of the damage that Parental Alienation does to CHILDREN – but make those women who do this feel the full force of social and cultural approbation – and have that reflected in how the Law is interpreted and APPLIED.

Tolerating the kinds of behaviours displayed by these women needs to stop – taking off the blinkers and inculcating an attitude that alienating one parent from their children is a vile, nasty, and disgusting thing to do, and harms CHILDREN.

Because the law is applied by people who also live in that society and culture – and are influenced by the same prevailing social and cultural norms. Irish Family Law, while not perfect has within it the potential to be applied equitably – to be used in a just and fair manner – it is the attitudes that prevail towards tolerating the toxic behaviour of some nasty little wretches that lies at the heart of a lot of the problems that assail Irish fathers.

Feminists will still peddle their shit – and shriek and rage about whatever the hell their latest stupid “issue” is – but – for every piece of unutterable crap that feminist “academics” or “experts” try and foist on people, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of VALID research and studies which comprehensively prove – what a load of crap it is.

But, if you change people’s attitudes to the kinds of behaviour that feminism endorses – they will – to all intents and purposes find themselves pissing into the wind, and the default paradigm can shift. The message is:

The primary victims of feminism are CHILDREN.

Every “theory” every “study” every piece of shit “research” is designed to do one thing and one thing only – if it is in relation to children or families – and that is to damage CHILDREN.

The Law is – as it stands now – is starting to become realigned, veering towards protecting CHILDREN,

What are children damaged by? Parental Alienation.

Who are the primary perpetrators of Parental Alienation? Mothers.

What do children need in order to grow up healthy and safe and functional? Two Parents.

Who peddles a toxic and vile ideology that has seeped into the consciousnesses of ignorant and ill-informed idiots in government, in the judiciary? Feminists.

Where do feminists hide out in Ireland? In universities and colleges, in government departments, as “policy advisors” and in charities.

What do feminists use to camouflage their activities IN Ireland? Women’s rights.

What is the counter argument to this shit? HUMAN RIGHTS.

And – Men’s Rights are Human Rights.

 

 

Men’s Rights Are Human Rights

 

Other than the first word “Men’s” in any civilised society or culture, it would be rare indeed to find anyone who would have an issue with the statement  – Rights Are Human Rights – and here in the West, we rather arrogantly assume ourselves to BE civilised societies and cultures, we pride ourselves on our technological advancement, on our dedication to Human Rights, in fact we rather pompously issue statements about the Human Rights abuses happening in other less “advanced” societies and cultures, and, do you know what?

We are full of shit – totally and utterly FULL. OF. SHIT.

Because as soon as you put the word “Men’s” in front of the statement, so it reads MEN’S Rights Are Human Rights – all bloody hell breaks out – screams and shrieks of protest, insults, a barrage of complaints and whines, endless and interminable toxic little screeds written or posted, that decries, denies, objects, or opposes the notion that MEN should have, are entitled to, or vested with HUMAN RIGHTS.

All because of one word – MEN.

No-one raises an eyebrow at the word Rights, or Human, and definitely not at those words being used in combination, so the only logical conclusion is that Human Rights is a good thing, so what is the issue, what causes the mother of all shitstorms of protest when MHRA’s precede those words with the word MEN’S?

The answer is simple – Men in general are considered to be, believed to be, and are promulgated by one sect of society as – less than human. That sect? Feminism.

I’ve always maintained that feminists, by and large are a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic, as well as other less……kind things.  But another thing that distinguishes feminists and those policy and law makers who listen to the shit feminists peddle is this – they are also dumb as a bag of hammers.

Human Rights according to them are the prerogative of special human beings, and any human being who fails to reach the parameters and standards set by feminists is therefore NOT entitled to the SAME level of Rights Protection as these other Special human beings.

They shriek about violence, they wail and work themselves up into a hysterical lather about rape culture, they weep and sob about oppression and disadvantage, and male privilege. This is all in an ongoing effort to maintain a system, a cultural, societal and legal framework that denies Human Rights to Men.

Are some men violent? Yep. Do some men rape women? Yep. Are some men complete and utter arseholes? Yep. In relation to Human rights though, what would be my answer to that?

So what? It is –  IRRELEVANT.

What human beings do, what kind of human being a person is, whether or not a particular human being is a complete nutcase IS IRRELEVANT – THAT Human Being is still a Human Being. Granted, maybe an arsehole, or total bitch, but none the less, a Human Being. Ergo. Vested with Human Rights.

The ONLY qualification for being vested with Human Rights is to BE a Human Being – no-one gets to set the parameters of which kinds of human beings are acceptable, no-one gets to lay out any other qualifications for being a human being, other than the ability to pass a DNA test that comes back – Homo Sapien.

End. Of. Story.

Which brings us to Laws – at its simplest – laws are the framework within which the parameters of allowable human behaviour are to be conducted, for ALL the human beings in a particular territory or jurisdiction. Contained within the framework of laws are provisions for sanctions, for punishments if a particular human being violates one of the acceptable and allowable human behaviours. Ok – laws cover much more than this – but for the purposes of this essay, let’s just stick to the basics?

If one thinks of Human Rights instruments as Primary Legislation – mostly contained within International Charters and in Constitutions, and Laws and Legislation as Secondary Legislation, then one should, if one is not a feminist, be able to discern that Human Rights take precedence, and Legislation is enacted that should embody provisions that PROTECT those Primary Human Rights.

This, unfortunately is where feminism and feminists have infected, have corrupted our cultures and societies, and have literally turned this admittedly simple concept on its head.

Laws first – Human Rights second – because feminism and feminists have convinced the powers that be, in most Western States, that up is down, right is left, good is bad.

The reason for this about face, this switch, is as simple as it is vile – if we take the emphasis OFF the Humanity of all but the most Special humans – in fact, if one emphasises the innate humanness of ONLY one type of human being and denigrate, dismiss and deride the innate humanity of those have been deemed less than human one can chip away at basic fundamental Human Rights from below, so to speak – can undermine the protections and provisions of Human Rights Primary Legislation to such an extent that they collapse at worst, and become hollow, become mere caricatures. Needless to say feminists have “tinkered” with and continue to demand more “tinkering with” Primary Human Rights Instruments.

THAT is what feminism and feminists have done – by their actions, by their toxic and vile ideology they have made a mockery of Human Rights, and rather than giving any credence, any validity to any right, of those in the West to lay claim to being “advanced” or civilised” or in a position to look down their noses at less “advanced” or civilised” cultures and societies – it is here in the West, where the true barbarians reside, where the real “backward” societies are.

WE, are the champion Human Rights violators and abusers on this planet.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

 

NB. Yes, I know, it is and has become a flawed Instrument, and yes I also know that the UN is infested with feminists, but for now, it is sadly almost all we’ve got. I posted the Preamble to illustrate how far FROM those noble aspirations we not just are, but are heading away from.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014.

Warning! Cuckoo in Your Nest!

IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.”

This is a quote from Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice oft quoted in joking fashion to urge men to enter into the bonds of matrimony.

Though the next part generally gets left out.

However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.”

Let us just rework that aphorism for the 21st century, shall we?

“It is a truth universally believed by women that a man in possession of a property not in negative equity will relinquish said property if his “live-in” girlfriend wants it, and will continue to pay the mortgage on said property even if no longer in possession of it

Anja Eriud – just today 🙂

There was a time, when the only legally recognised “relationship” between men and women was a properly conducted marriage, when I say properly conducted; I mean a ceremony performed by a person licensed to perform such ceremonies by the state thereby making it a legally recognised marriage.

Marriage has undergone some significant changes since the 18th century, legally speaking, from recognising the rights of women within marriage, to extending the remit of marriage beyond the bounds of religious ceremonies alone, into the civil/family law arena so that marriage became a “legal and social” contract as well as a religious or spiritual or even practical “bond

This was and is a good thing, not everybody is religious, for a lot of people “being married” was a public statement of their commitment, being married recognised the bond that existed between these two people and gave this bond legal force and a certain amount of legal protection.

Ok, I realise it is a lot more complicated than that, but for the purposes of this essay, let us just agree that “being married” has or had more legal, social and cultural legitimacy than “living in sin” as it used to be called, had. Ok?

Then, along came feminism, and apparently marriage became a prison, a form of “enslavement” for women, so that once more, laws were changed to ensure that women were no longer “enslaved” but did in fact become overseers, became the sole arbitrators of not just the parameters of marriage, but could dissolve this union on a whim, even better could seize every “asset” accrued during the term of this legal bond, including any children,  and render their “oppressive master” homeless, penniless, childless and in fiscal servitude to this poor “enslaved” women for life.

Cronan, Sheila (writer, member of the radical feminist group The Redstockings)

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women’s Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” (Sheila Cronan, in Radical Feminism – “Marriage” (1970), Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., HarperCollins, 1973, p. 219)”

Aha!  Men started to cop on to this, men started to say, sod this, and began declining to enter into this legal bond, in greater and greater numbers. This is a now a worldwide phenomenon.

Hmmmm, this did, and does cause some consternation to women, after all, women are a prize to be won, the ultimate symbol of male achievement, to have some woman graciously bestow her favour on a supplicant man by allowing him to “walk her down the aisle” with the hapless groom on an invisible and metaphorical chain so to speak.

Not to worry, feminists got on the case, yes you guessed it, we need new laws they declared, more new laws and even more new laws, so that even if some “man” declines to submit himself to the chains of marriage and just wants to “live in sin” with a poor, helpless women there must be laws to ensure that this fragile creature still has the power to seize all assets, again including children, and evict this unworthy creature known as man from his home peremptorily……not forgetting of course that he must continue to finance this poor delicate fragile woman as she sits on her fat arse in the house he bought and paid for, he must be enslaved (oopps I mean obliged, legally “obliged”) and continue to “service the needs” of this cuckoo.

Cuckoo? Yes, cuckoo, for that is what these wretched women are, except rather than simply hijacking a nest, laying an egg and buggering off, leaving some innocent birdie to raise their voracious, fratricidal offspring, these cuckoo’s stay, these cuckoo’s settle into the nest, make the nest their own, lay the eggs, then when good and settled, it is the poor unfortunate host birdie that gets his ass kicked out.

Thing is, the evicted birdie still has to supply this cuckoo with nice juicy worms, in rain, hail or storm, and for these metaphors feel free to substitute, redundancy, unemployment, homelessness, ill-health, depression and poverty, all the while in servitude to this fat-arsed, lazy, greedy, vindictive and spiteful cuckoo. Tragically in some cases our birdie, our man finds this all too much to bear and commits suicide.

This all leads us to this:

Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. (CP Act 2010)

This piece of relatively new legislation is designed to “plug the loophole” that allowed men in so called “defacto” or “common law marriages” (which was a myth by the way) to walk away or rather, divest themselves of the cuckoo’s in their nests without being obliged (forced legally) to hand over possession of said nest, and to continue to supply the worms to this cuckoo.

Not any more, nope, nosireebob, to put it rather crudely, if you, a man even look sideways at some wretch you may just be opening up a whole can of worms for yourself, or rather for her.

Already in other jurisdictions legislative changes have been made at the insistence of course of those perennial “defenders of women’s rights” feminists. Please note the sarcasm.

Now, since 2010 Ireland has joined the party, thrown its hat into the ring, and embraced the concept of giving pseudo marriage rights to cuckoo’s – oops, my bad – I meant “poor helpless vulnerable wimmin”.

Odd, isn’t it, how all this “equality” so beloved of feminists never seems to benefit men in any way, shape or form, strange how all this “equality” is applied only to women? Maybe it’s just me? Maybe I just don’t understand the REAL meaning of “equality

Now for the good news! Or rather, the slightly better than completely bad news.

In their wisdom, Irish legislators have included one small ray of hope into this ridiculous legislation, an “opt-out” clause. But, and this needs your careful attention, you (if you are a man) need to lose some unrealistic beliefs. You, (if you are a man) need to listen up, pay attention and COP ON to yourself!

There is a caveat, to the best of my knowledge, this provision has not been “tested” in Irish Courts. Yet. We do after all live in a gynocentric culture.

First and foremost – living together is now not just you and your current girlfriend shacking up together to see if you can stand the sight of one another for longer than 24 hours. Living together, especially in a house YOU bought and paid for, or maybe inherited, is no longer a private ah-hoc arrangement between you and your current love bunny. IT NOW HAS A LEGAL ELEMENT.

Have you got that? The state can now poke it pointy nose into your business, and your love bunny, your snookums, if she has a mind to, can turn rabid on you and……… USE THE POWER OF THE STATE AGAINST YOU TO FORCE YOU OUT OF YOUR PROPERTY!

Yes indeed, snookums can, and believe me will, make your life hell, make you homeless, drive you into penury, hold any child of yours hostage, if you are dumb, yes DUMB enough to reproduce with this wretch! Because once a child enters this rosy picture – all bets are off – any slim legal protection of your assets had? GONE! You are, and will be……………………SCREWED!

And no, you won’t be lying there afterwards with a daft grin on your face, having a smoke and feeling gooooooooooooooooooooooooood!

You’ll be sitting with your head in your hands, in total and utter shock and devastation, in the corridors of Family Court having just lost practically everything, and snookums?

She’ll be the cold-hearted sneering contemptuous bitch looking down her nose at you in triumph as she sweeps from the courthouse with her conniving lawyer in a waft of really expensive perfume that it is now your responsibility to keep her supplied with. Got it? Good.

So, let’s get into the gory details.

Are you aware the Civil Partnership Act affects heterosexual couples too?

If you live together, that is if a human male and a human female COHABIT – for a minimum of five (5) years, all your assets may become to all intents and purposes – JOINT assets. This means the property you are living in, possibly even if this is your family home and you inherited after your parents passed away, and she had no hand or part in financing.

If this property is one that you bought, raised the mortgage on, and were paying, and continue to pay from your own earnings, it won’t matter, after five years, the provisions of the CP Act 2010 kick in, she could now claim an interest (a legal interest) in that property, and boy will she be interested. If during the course of your relationship, you earn more, or have more assets than her, she will be considered the defacto “injured party” and eligible to sue you for REDRESS! Got it?

The Act also establishes a redress scheme to give protection to a financially dependent person at the end of a long-term cohabiting relationship. This provides a legal safety net for people in long-term relationships who may otherwise be very vulnerable financially at the end of a relationship, whether through break-up or through bereavement.

The redress scheme may only be activated at the end of a relationship of at least five years duration, whether by break-up or death, and allows a financially dependent cohabitant to apply to court for certain remedies, including maintenance, pension or property adjustment orders, or provision from the estate of a deceased cohabitant.”

In the event that you and your snookums have a wee baby, two years from the date that child is born is all that is needed for the provisions of the CP Act 2010, to kick in, think about this for a minute, there you are all snuggly and cosy in your love nest and “ooops” a few months in, she tells you that you will soon be hearing the pitter patter of little feet. We now have a situation where rather than having to “put up” with you for five loooooooong years, she can almost cut that time in half, just by “accidently” getting herself “with child

The Act defines “qualified cohabitants” as those residing together as an unmarried couple in an intimate relationship for a period of five years, or two years where there is a child or children of the relationship.

In determining case the economic dependency of the claiming partner is the key factor, although other criteria must also be taken into account including the duration of the relationship and the contributions made by each cohabitant, whether financial or otherwise.”

Having said that, the fact that you are not actually legally married when this little urchin arrives, creates its own particular legal problemsFOR YOU. (We’ll talk about this in another post)

So, guys, I really do urge you to think this all through, and to show some foresight, some common sense. And yeah I know, it’s “not romantic” to be discussing such practical things – as you might hear her say, even while she her  beady eye on your two up, two down.

Hang on a minute here, how romantic is it for you to be in actual danger of losing your property and possibly paying through the nose to support some wench that you moved into your house then realised that this wasn’t going to work? Then, rather than asking her politely to leave and have her GO! You end up in court, and she walks out with the keys to your home?

Being practical, taking steps to protect your property, your assets, and putting in place an agreement that allows you both (to be fair) to make a clean break from relationships that don’t work out is sensible, is reasonable.

If she kicks up a stink about your reasonable and sensible request to enter into a Cohabitation Agreement for living together, then it ain’t romance that’s driving her it’s…………………………..an eye on the main chance, it’s greed, it’s avarice, it’s downright sneaky!

© Anja Eriud 2013

Note

Even though the general thrust of this essay is directed at events that might take place in the Irish jurisdiction, you may have noticed I used sources from the Canadian, Australian and US jurisdictions. There is a good reason for this, Irish courts DO refer to other “common law” court decsions and precedents in their rulings, not so much US though. Regardless, the influence of feminism is Global, and manifests itself in ALL jurisdictions, including in decsions of the ECJ (European Court of Justice)