thepoliticsoffatherrightsactivists–dopersistentcritics.docVIP

thepoliticsoffatherrightsactivists–dopersistentcritics.doc

  1. 1、本文档共23页,可阅读全部内容。
  2. 2、原创力文档(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。
  3. 3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载
  4. 4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
  5. 5、该文档为VIP文档,如果想要下载,成为VIP会员后,下载免费。
  6. 6、成为VIP后,下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后,不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们
  7. 7、成为VIP后,您将拥有八大权益,权益包括:VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
  8. 8、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传,每下载1次, 网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等,对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档
查看更多
thepoliticsoffatherrightsactivists–dopersistentcritics

The Politics of Father Rights Activists – Do persistent critics of the Family Court behave in a way which stands up to scrutiny? By M. C. Dunn Presented to National Abuse Free Contact Campaign (NAFCC) 2004 In 1995 when the Australian family law was being amended, Family Court of Australia Chief Justice Nicholson stated “some people and some politicians with limited knowledge of the issues involved, tend to latch on to such dysfunctional persons for apparent political gain. This has the further unfortunate effect of empowering such persons to feel that their behaviour is not only acceptable but is the subject of sympathy and approval by politicians and government. It is all too often the experience of this court that its most persistent critics have behaved in a way which cannot stand up to public scrutiny, particularly in relation to issues of violence against women and children”. Justice Nicholson has consistently recognised that many of the Court’s harshest critics were “discontented litigants, sometimes obviously dysfunctional”. Further, he recognised that these same people and the groups to which they belong, were being granted access to corridors of powers that resulted in legislation and policy reforms that did not arrest the violence against women and children (that was being heard in some family court proceedings). Justice Nicholson continued “Such persons, who often espouse the rights of fathers, do very little for their cause. There are legitimate matters that can be advanced on their behalf and it is equally as important that the court and those within it do not adopt stereotyped attitudes towards men as well as women.” (Nicholson 1995, p1) In the context of Justice Nicholson’s comments above, this paper scrutinises the behaviour and language of the two major father’s rights activists organisations, the Shared Parenting Council of Australia (SPCA), and the Fatherhood Foundation (FF), particularly in relation to issues of violence against women and

文档评论(0)

jvdodnnv002 + 关注
实名认证
文档贡献者

该用户很懒,什么也没介绍

1亿VIP精品文档

相关文档