‘Father’ Film Dropped by Amnesty
International under Feminist Pressure
by Shane Flait (2011)
Feminists use pressure tactics in
government and media to cover-up the
injustice that fit fathers face in
family courts here and around the
world. Amnesty International, a human
rights organization, dropped a film in
its own sponsored competition when some
finalists produced a film that exposed
the denial of rights fathers faced under
Sweden’s family court – a film that
angered feminists. Here’s what the film
said…
Amnesty International denies any
feminist pressure, but mysteriously
dropped the film from its competition in
the final stage. But the Uppsala women’s
shelter gloated over its political clout
to snuff the film.
The film, ‘The Right
to Be a Father’, was created by four
high school students to show how
children are unjustly taken from their
fathers by Sweden’s feminist family
courts. It was nominated for the
competition. Amnesty posted the film on
YouTube, and invited the creators to the
film gala in Gothenburg. But Sara
Sivesson, one of its creators said “our
film was never shown at the festival,
and the day after it also disappeared
from Amnesty’s YouTube channel”.
The 8 minute film features a father
describing his circumstance and
heartache about how Swedish family
social services policies unjustly
undermine his right to parent his young
daughter. An interviewer questions him
and cuts away to question a female
lawyer, too. Pleasant music and video
footage of young children complement the
film’s dialog.
English subtitles have been added to the
Swedish dialog. Here’s the complete
English subtitle text:
*THE FATHER:
It was so.., that about a little more
than four years ago our daughter was one
year old, we lived together and had
shared custody.
But the relationship was failing, and
one morning when I woke up she had taken
our daughter and move in with her
mother.
I did try to contact them in order to at
least get to see my daughter.
But as soon as I did that the
accusations started to come. I was said
to be dangerous, threatening, harassing,
psychologically ill, an alcoholic,
and…well, you name it…
There is no requirement to present
proof. A mere accusation is sufficient.
Then the judges give you, "just as a
precaution" as it's called, supervised
visitations, much as if you were in
jail.
You will get to see your child four
hours ever other week, under
supervision, in order to make sure you
won't "do anything".
*AT THIS POINT the film displays the
words THE RIGHT TO BE A FATHER, followed
by the film’s thesis:
Many people believe that a father who
has lost his kids in a custody battle
doesn't care about them. The truth is
that many fathers have fought to be part
of their children's lives. But they have
faced discrimination and resistance,
both from the mother and from
authorities.
Then the film cuts to an interview
question…
*FILM INTERVIEWER QUESTION TO A FEMAL
LAWYER:
Did you ever come across a case where
the man was treated unfairly in court?
*LAWYER:
Yes, on rare occasions. It can be the
case when a mother stages a campaign of
severe slander during the custody
investigation. It is very sad when this
happens, and when the court perhaps buys
into everything in an investigative
report, not questioning any of it.
When it comes to young children, the
court routinely considers it to be the
child's best interest to stay with the
mother, especially very young children.
The emotional connection with the father
is considered to be "insufficient".
The film then cuts back to the father…
*THE FATHER:
The position taken by Social Services is
clear already from the start: It's the
mother who is the victim and the father
who is the abuser.
The issue is also that we men, just by
being dragged into a custody battle,
feel that we have done something wrong.
We feel shame, we feel guilt. And the
people around us also think that we have
caused it.
Then all of a sudden you are only
"allowed" to see your kids three days
per month, or a few hours at an
unfamiliar location. This is the most
common situation, and it is right there,
in this custody process, that the man is
torn apart inside.
You get worn down emotionally by not
being able to see your children, and
don't know what's happening, and so on.
We want to be dads as much as moms want
to be moms.
The worst thing is that to the children,
we are their daddy, not just some
babysitter, so they don't understand
what's happening either.
This is the reason that the statistical
information is so incredibly important.
It shows that children who are deprived
of a chance to be with their daddy do
not get their basic needs fulfilled and
this has huge consequences for society.
*AT THIS POINT, the film displays the
statistics:
63% of all kids who commit suicide come
from fatherless homes.
85% of all youths in prison grew up in
fatherless homes.
80% of all men who commit rape grew in
fatherless homes.
Then the film cuts back to the female
lawyer at her office again…
*FILM INTERVIEWER QUESTION TO A FEMALE
LAWYER:
Is there a big gender-based difference
in how people are treated by the courts?
*LAWYER:
No, there's not.
The film cuts back to the father…
*FATHER:
The funny thing is that when she files
unsubstantiated police reports against
me, without any proof, they act
immediately with long investigations,
and they separate children from their
fathers by force.
But when I or other fathers report
crimes which are in fact documented,
such as violation of a court order
regarding the child, then they won't
even start a preliminary investigation.
You just get a letter in the next day's
mail saying," there will be no
investigation".
*FILM INTERVIEWER QUESTION TO A FATHER:
Why do you think that men often are
discriminated against in the courts
during custody battles?
*FATHER:
I think it's a tradition that goes about
40 years back. At that time, feminism
was very strong. It grew strong both
politically and in the homes.
We had a tradition of women staying home
with the kids, but with the
socialization of child care, health
care, elder care, women got access to
the labor market.
However, the view that men are unable to
care for children still lived on and has
remained un changed since that point, 40
years back.
The problem is that we no longer have
the same social structure and this means
that today's discrimination is built on
prejudice rather than facts.
When I sued again for custody and
visitation, a case was filed against me
for some sort of sexual molestation of
my child.
When they brand you with that
accusation, you will never really be
cleared, regardless of the fact that the
case was dropped after the preliminary
investigation.
There are women's shelters in Sweden and
they have one basic rule. One must NEVER
question a woman's story. The social
services, on the other hand, are
supposed to always do just that.
Still, these two different organizations
have a deep and close cooperation. In
some counties, they are even housed in
the same building.
What is wrong today isn't the law itself
but what could be done immediately is
make sure there is a change in attitude.
We have entered a path in Sweden where
we move toward a fatherless society.
Today, there are 200,000 children or
more who only see their dad a few days a
month; 40,000 don't see him at all.
They try to lay the blame, for this as
well, on the fathers. We get branded as
deadbeats, as if we don't care. But
looking at the individual cases, this is
often not true.
*FILM INTERVIEWER QUESTION TO A FATHER:
Do you feel rejected by society?
*FATHER:
Yes
*FILM INTERVIEWER QUESTION TO A FATHER:
Do you have any hope of re-establishing
a good relationship with your daughter?
*FATHER:
"Yes, without that hope I would not be
able to muster the strength to go on.
It's that little piece of hope that
gives you the strength not to give up
but keep on it… But... the odds are not
good".
END
Fathers subjected to the family courts
recognize the universal truth of the
feminist fraud this film engenders.
View the video at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqSA81b1d1Y
.
Shane Flait is a writer and educator
