EJF Newsletter — Response of Prof. Stephen Baskerville to UK Ministry of Justice
Reproduced with permission of the author
From September 15th to December 10th of 2018 the government of the United Kingdom sought comments on its proposal to change the law to reduce family conflict and strengthen family responsibility, i.e., newspeak for “no fault” divorce. Toward that end the Ministry of Justice published a survey on their website and invited public comment.
Long-time champion of families and marriage, Prof. Stephen Baskerville, author of Taken Into Custody and The New Politics of Sex among other books and articles, has published his responses to the UK Consultation on Divorce together with the questions asked:
| EJF Home | More newsletters | Get EJF newsletter | Find Help | Join the EJF | Comments? |
Issues The Equal Justice Foundation Deals With
| Civilization | Families and Marriage | Global Domestic Violence | Domestic Violence Against Men in Colorado | Emerson story |
| Courts, Veteran Courts, & Civil Liberties | Prohibition & War On Drugs | Vote Fraud & Election Issues |
Response
1. Do you agree with the proposal to retain irretrievable breakdown as the sole ground for divorce?
This is a prescription for (further) nihilism in the courts. A functioning justice system must be based on justice. Justice that is blind to fault is a contradiction in terms. This will simply open the families of Britain, and with them the private lives of all British citizens, to further control by unelected judges and will transform judges from dispensers of justice into clerks and functionaries. Judges will further dispense, rather than relieve, injustice.
2. In principle, do you agree with the proposal to replace the five facts with a notification process?
This removes the last vestiges of recourse for a spouse/parent whose private life is occupied and controlled by the courts through the divorce machinery. It simply codifies the existing practice and will make little material difference other than to provide the appearance of legal authority for what is nothing less than legal chicanery.
3. Do you consider that provision should be made for notice to be given jointly by both parties to the marriage as well as for notice to be given by only one party?
But this will make no difference in practice, since unilateral, involuntary divorce and seizure of children and property will continue to be permitted in any case. It is another part of the charade.
4. We have set out reasons why the Government thinks it helpful to retain the two-stage decree process (decree nisi and decree absolute). Do you agree?
I do not agree that it is in any way “helpful.” It will make no material difference, because the government retains the power to involuntarily divorce innocent people, remove them from their homes, and take away their children and property. Neither the government nor those at whose instigation it acts will be required to take any responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
5. What minimum period do you think would be most appropriate to reduce family conflict, and how should it be measured?
Six weeks (the current minimum period is six weeks and a day)
A different period (please use the text box to specify)
Lifetime. No minimum time period can have any effect to “reduce conflict.” If you are going to insist on having the power to remove people from their homes, take away their children, and seize their property, you are going to create “conflict.” Are you expecting that people will simply forget that their children have been stolen? This is unbelievably dishonest and cynical.
6. Are there any circumstances in which the minimum time frame should be reduced or even extended?
The question invites the desired answer and precludes others, since no time frame on unilateral coercive action against innocent people can possibly have any more than the most marginal impact.
7. Do you think that the minimum period on nullity cases should reflect the reformed minimum period in divorce and dissolution cases?
8. Do you agree with the proposal to remove the ability to contest as a general rule?
This is obviously a major step in removing justice from the justice system, and turning the courts into instruments of plunder and injustice. It is a red herring. It is not a matter of “contesting” a divorce. It is a matter of holding parties (including government officials) responsible for their actions in breaking a legal contract and not allowing one party to collude with the state to plunder and loot the other.
9. Are there are any exceptional circumstances in which a respondent should be able to contest the divorce?
Please explain these exceptional circumstances.
Here too, by wording this question in terms of "exceptional circumstances," the desired answer is already implied. Any unilateral action by the state against the private life of any individual — especially a citizen that is legally unimpeachable — must be contestable. Otherwise you have unlimited government and tyranny. The state has no right to inflict divorce on innocent individuals unilaterally and leave that individual no recourse for the consequences.
10. Do you agree that the bar on petitioning for divorce in the first year of the marriage should remain in place?
This is another red herring. Putting a “bar” on divorce is not the issue. No one can prevent a divorce if one party is determined to leave, and no one advocates that you should try. The issue is requiring parties to take responsibility for what they do when they break the contract. Those who bring about divorce (either though fault or for divorce without fault) must be required to take responsibility for the consequences and not be permitted to foist them on the innocent spouse/parent. This is the very meaning of justice. This perversion of the most basic principles of the English Common Law is prodigious.
11. Do you have any comment on the proposal to retain these or any other requirements?
This entire proposal is monstrously dishonest and cynical. Under the guise of reducing “acrimony,” it proposes to deprive legally unimpeachable citizens of any vestiges of legal recourse or redress against arbitrary and unilateral government action to invade and control their private lives. It proposes to place the stigma of “conflict” and “acrimony” on the innocent citizens seeking redress against injustice. As such, it is a diametrical perversion of the justice system from the administration of justice to the administration of injustice. There is no parallel for any such actions anywhere in the legal system — at least not yet, but this poison is already spreading throughout the judiciary.
12. We invite further data and information to help update our initial impact assessment and equalities impact assessment following the consultation
This is all documented in my book Taken Into Custody. The first chapter was uploaded in a Word manuscript version.
For additional information on the effects of what the British government is proposing please see The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage and Judy Parejko's book Stolen Vows.
As a result of actions like those proposed by the British government now, for nearly two decades the Equal Justice Foundation has been pointing out that under current laws a man has to be functionally insane to marry, and a drooling idiot to sire a child. Logically, these state actions have led to what Wendy McElroy's terms The Marriage Strike, and formation of groups of men who are boycotting marriage and families like MGTOW.
| EJF Home | More newsletters | Get EJF newsletter | Find Help | Join the EJF | Comments? |
Issues The Equal Justice Foundation Deals With
| Civilization | Families and Marriage | Global Domestic Violence | Domestic Violence Against Men in Colorado | Emerson story |
| Courts, Veteran Courts, & Civil Liberties | Prohibition & War On Drugs | Vote Fraud & Election Issues |