Don’t negotiate with terrorists

This is what a terrorist looks like.
Arthur Freeman, shortly after his arrest in 1999.

Fathers’ Rights Groups (the procreating arm of the MRAs) are spelling it out for everyone to see. Check out this story with commentary from Australian group Lone Fathers’ Association (LFA), whom I gather are just as derranged as the British Fathers 4 Justice (F4J).

Legal system failed Darcey Freeman, lobbyist says

THE murder of Darcey Freeman by her father following a child custody dispute is inexcusable, but the legal system should take some of the blame, an advocate for single fathers says.

Barry Williams, president and founder of the Lone Fathers Association, said men are treated unfairly by the legal system when it comes to Family Court disputes.

Their frustration and despair at not being able to see their children usually drives fathers to harm themselves, but some men, like Arthur Freeman, are driven to harm their children, Mr Williams said.

After five days of deliberation, a jury yesterday found Freeman, 37, guilty of murdering four-year-old Darcey by throwing her from the West Gate Bridge on the morning of January 29, 2009.

The day before Darcey’s death, orders were made in the Family Court to reduce Freeman’s custody access to his three children.

“It’s a terrible thing what happened to that poor child, in front of the other children too, but the system is to take blame for some of this,” Mr Williams said today.

“The court makes orders of access to one parent, usually the dad in most cases but the minute they walk out of that court, that can be broken and the court has admitted they can’t do anything.

“I’ve spoken to many hundreds and hundreds, thousands of men, who’ve felt despair after that and they go away and do something to themselves … in (Freeman’s) case, he went away and did it to his young daughter, which is terrible.”

The legal system is failing to enforce Family Court orders when it comes to men, creating a double standard, he said.

It also turns a blind eye to the issue of men’s suicide, he said.

“Unfortunately, we’ve got nearly one million dads in Australia, many of them have court orders and yet they can’t see their children,” Mr Williams said.

“The system won’t help them, even though they’ve paid, in some cases, over $100,000 in court costs to get those orders.

“I know hundreds of men that have suicided over not being able to see their children.”

The Herald Sun revealed this morning that Freeman said his ex-wife would “regret it” if he ever lost custody of his children.

A close family source – who has asked not to be named for professional reasons – told the Herald Sun of a conversation in which Arthur Freeman issued the veiled threat.

The relative said it was uttered at an early family Christmas party at Freeman’s parents’ home at Aireys Inlet in late November 2008 – about two months before little Darcey Freeman was thrown from the bridge.

“Arthur and I were discussing things about the custody of the children,” the close relative said.

“During this conversation Arthur said that ‘she (ex-wife Peta Barnes) would regret it’ if he lost custody of the children.

“That comment has gone through my head over and over. I thought he’d go after Peta – by that I mean making her life hard through legal channels.

“He loved the kids.”

The Herald Sun believes police were made aware of the comments during the latter stages of Freeman’s murder trial.

Freeman had pleaded not guilty to Darcey’s murder on the ground of mental impairment.

The prosecution said he deliberately and consciously killed Darcey.

The day before he murdered his daughter, orders were made in the Family Court, by consent, to reduce the number of days he had custody access to his three children – Ben, 6, Jack 2, and Darcey.

Of the custody dispute, Freeman’s relative told the Herald Sun: “It was like he started to feel like he had no control over anything. It frustrated him to no end.”

On the morning of Darcey’s death, Freeman had spoken to Ms Barnes on the phone and told her to say goodbye to her children.

“You’ll never see your children again,” he said.

Chief Crown prosecutor Gavin Silbert, SC, said those threats showed Freeman “knew the nature and quality of what he was about to do”.

“We are perhaps indeed fortunate that he didn’t throw all three children over the bridge,” Mr Silbert told the jury.

Darcey’s maternal relatives sat through the entire two-week trial.

Ms Barnes did not comment as she left the court.

Freeman’s parents, Peter and Norma, also said nothing as they left the court.

The Freeman family source said, “They are very emotional at the moment, understandably. They are quite placid people.”

Arthur Freeman was driving his children back to Melbourne from his parents’ home when he stopped in the emergency lane on the bridge, put his hazard lights on and asked Darcey to move into the front seat.

He then carried her and threw her over the railing.

It was supposed to be Darcey’s first day of school. In the car as they were driving away, young Ben told his father: “Go back and get her . . . Darcey can’t swim.”

In his closing, defence counsel David Brustman, SC, said his client’s “head was simply elsewhere” when he committed the horrific crime.

Six psychiatrists assessed Freeman. Only one supported his mental impairment defence. He believed Freeman was suffering a “major depressive disorder” and was in a “dissociative state” – like a sleep walker.

Of the five expert psychiatrists who did not support the defence, one told the jury Darcey’s death fitted a “spousal revenge” classification.

A pre-sentence plea hearing is expected on Friday and Justice Paul Coghlan plans to sentence Freeman before Easter.

Note that the LFA are effectively supporting Freeman, and trying to put the blame onto the “unfair Family Courts”. The word “frustration” comes up not only from the LFA spokesman, but also from the Freeman relative relating to Freeman’s remarks two months before he murdered Darcey. We see that not only Freeman, but other fathers also have “frustration”. “Frustration (in males) can easily lead to femicide or infantcide apparently.

The LFA spokesman tries to garner sympathy that ‘poor menz will kill themselves’ but adds “some men like Arthur Freeman are driven to harm their children”.

This is not only tacit support of Freeman and his actions, but a veiled threat as well … ‘something’ might just happen to children if you do not let fathers have access.

Clearly the Family Court in the Freeman case made the exactly right decision in reducing Freeman’s access, it must have been recognised with regards to Freeman’s abusive/vengeful tendancies. So why the fuck does this LFA idiot spokesman hold up the Freeman case as part of his cause? It can only be to issue that threat, ‘give us what we want, or you will (all) be sorry’. Because politically, tactically, it makes no fucking sense otherwise.

It is clear that the LFA have no interest whatsoever in the safety and well-being of children, it is all about fathers’ rights of access, regardless of the circumstances. This is a parallel of transjactivists insisting access to all FAB-only areas, regardless of the dangers to FABs. Men’s groups – they don’t give a fuck about anyone but themselves.

Never ever negotiate with terrorists.

This is a follow-up post on the murder of Darcey Freeman.
I wanted to reference a post of Linda Radfem’s to this one, could not find the one I was thinking of, but found a couple of other great posts at hers:
More dads winning custody
MRAs and their reactionary whining
both excellent posts related to the above.

16 thoughts on “Don’t negotiate with terrorists

  1. FAB Libber

    Aussie radfems should keep their eye on the LFA.

    The ‘father killing kids [and sometimes himself]’ is a growing trend, I have been seeing it more and more. None of this supports giving fathers greater access to the children, in fact, they should have LESS access, and NO unsupervised access in many cases, particularly in cases where he is a known domestic abuser (to wife), or as in the Freeman case, has made any kind of vengeful threat against her or the kids.

    This is all typical male behaviour. They don’t get their way, so it is violence and the threat of violence. Fucking terrorists.


  2. FAB Libber

    I also specifically found this early photo of Freeman, because he was, and appeared to be, Mr Joe Average – you cannot pick murders and abusers out of a line-up usually.

    Later, by the time his trial was underway, Freeman grew his hair out in “crazy man” style, to bolster his “mental incapacity” defence. Another fucking transparent tactic if ever I saw one.

    But hah hah to Freeman, only ONE out of SIX shrinks testified for the defence.


  3. maggie

    “The system won’t help them, even though they’ve paid, in some cases, over $100,000 in court costs to get those orders.”

    That’s a lot of money and usually they are withholding money to the wife and the children. So much for ‘I love my kids’.

    “The ‘father killing kids [and sometimes himself]‘ is a growing trend, I have been seeing it more and more. None of this supports giving fathers greater access to the children, in fact, they should have LESS access, and NO unsupervised access in many cases, particularly in cases where he is a known domestic abuser (to wife), or as in the Freeman case, has made any kind of vengeful threat against her or the kids.”

    And this of course.

    My children’s father never contacts them at their home, not a text or a phone call, when it not his time to see them. My youngest, a boy, has said to me that it does seem as if his father doesn’t care for him. His dad can go for two weeks without contact of any kind. Yet he does purport to ‘love his children’. People are, rightly, judged by their actions.


  4. FAB Libber

    Yes, the $100k thing was absolutely staggering, that they have this sort of money to fight these things – and you can bet that the wife will get little from the divorce. A friend of mine has just been through a divorce (older children, no custody stuff) and the husband started hiding funds as soon as divorce was on the cards, including out of the pension fund.


  5. Linda Radfem

    This could go in your projections/reversals thread, FAB. The idea that it’s men who suffer from divorce, when it’s women who are always worse off. None of these guys cared about their kids until the Child Support Agency was introduced and they were forced to pay to support them, then the MRAs developed.

    Our family court is being heavily criticised now for facilitating continued abuse at a systemic level. Very rarely is a perp ever ordered no contact, so we have children enduring “quality time” with perps in lock down ‘safe’ centres. All in the name of upholding a child’s ‘right’ to access to both parents.

    Amazing how the dad’s rights crowd seem to see Darcey as simply collateral damage in a war against loving fathers, rather than proof of men’s violence and sense of entitlement within the family unit.


  6. FAB Libber

    I added links to two of your posts around the same issues.

    It is truly bizarre that the LFA uses Darcey’s murder of why fathers should be granted more rights, more access. FFS, it totally proves the opposite. These dudes don’t even listen to themselves, the ridiculousness of their own arguments.

    More people (well radfems, general population) should back that family court decision with regard to Freeman, because they were spot on the money. If anything, they were too lenient, giving him unsupervised access.

    And yeah, it is surprising the number of “caring fathers” that come out of the woodwork when they are forced to financially assist in their offsprings’ care. It reads exactly like trying to “get their monies worth” and “they paid for it” stuff. Caring my ass.


  7. maggie

    In addition all the MRAs, ffj etc all signed up to the mandatory sex in marriage. They all believed it. They gave wifey money and expected sex in return. Without exception, even after the births of babies and in illness they wanted to stick their dicks in. Post divorce and they don’t see a reason for giving money for the person receiving it no longer provides them with PIV on demand. They would rather the state take care of the wife and kids by way of benefits than give a penny to their financial survival and a future.


  8. jilla

    100,000–that’s such good fathering. Male point of view: they paid for it they own it now hand it over. You earn your right to parent you don’t buy it.


  9. Nelle

    @maggie: Good point! Of course.

    They did the same thing with the George Sodini case-threatened that women will be killed/mass murdered if we do not make ourselves available for men to date. Somehow it’s always our fault that they’re fucked up in the head.

    If this man really loved his daughter he wouldn’t have killed her. Most men harm children emotionally or physically, to hurt the mother.

    I just find it hard to believe that men would harm their own child out of not being able to see them . If you had an opportunity to kill your child, you had an opportunity to see them. No, you just did it because you’re a sick bastard who wanted to take a mother’s child away from her permanently because she took her child away from you temporarily. Men always have to go above and beyond to hurt women if they so much as touch a nerve.

    If my father decided to come up and kill me he would probably do it because he fucking hated me, not because he missed me so much (and he does hate me).
    And MRAs need to make up their fucking minds. Either be a deadbeat dad, or a poor wittle single daddy who’s kid is locked away in a tall ivory tower,protected by the evil mother. They can’t have it both ways.


  10. FCM

    the ultimate MAAB manipulation: dont make me mad/sad/frustrated/worried or someone is going to get hurt. its always the same with these guys, and we are supposed to take their word for it that the solution is to stop making them mad. oh okay! how about locking them up preemptively, (or you know, executing them) if they even give a hint of being violent, even BEFORE they do anything? the very thought is un-american, but damn, its probably the only thing thats going to work.


  11. ball buster

    I wish I had more to contribute to this conversation but – HOLY SHIT! Are they serious?? Giving fathers more isn’t going to make this problem go away, it’s only going to make it worse. Rewarding men for their psychotic self centeredness is only going to create more psychotic self centeredness. smh this world is going to shit much faster than I ever anticipated.


  12. ball buster

    Nelle! You’re back! Oooh yeah George Sodini. Who can forget that nasty psycho? And his piss poor pity me I can’t get laid! manifesto that was both sexist and racist. No wonder women didn’t like him. He was a fucking creep.


  13. FAB Libber

    No, you just did it because you’re a sick bastard who wanted to take a mother’s child away from her permanently because she took her child away from you temporarily. Men always have to go above and beyond to hurt women if they so much as touch a nerve.
    The going above and beyond, good point Nelle, that is what they do.

    It is a relatively recent trend that the males kill the children, they used to just kill the ex-spouse (sometimes the kids with her). But they discovered that it would be a lifetime of pain towards the woman to kill her kids and keep her alive. The ultimate in vindictiveness. Most of them don’t really give a shit about the custody either (or the kids), it’s all about causing maximum pain. And the greatest number kill themselves at the time or after the incident, to escape any punishment (men don’t do responsibility for their actions).

    the ultimate MAAB manipulation: dont make me mad/sad/frustrated/worried or someone is going to get hurt.

    Yes it is. It’s male terrorism.
    And, exactly the point that the LFA dude is making too, “give us custody, or bad stuff like this can happen”. Oh yeah, he coded it, but the message is still there.

    I had not heard of Sodini (I was busy around that time). It seems he went into the gym earlier several times – obviously waiting for a big aerobics class of women. Gee, he couldn’t get laid – that somehow gets translated to a problem for any/all women.


  14. Aileen Wuornos

    Nelle you said it best when you remarked that if he did love her, he wouldn’t have harmed her. Men are fucking liars. As far as I know mra’s don’t get taken too seriously here in aus, apart from the odd article or report in current affair programmes.



Leave a rilly rilly twanzphobic reply, go on, dares ya!

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s